1951-12-11

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. Bradette.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the report of the Department of National Defence for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1951.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


Mr. Jean Lesage (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) I beg leave to table three copies of the French and English texts of the protocol to the North Atlantic treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey, signed at London on behalf of Canada and other members of NATO on October 17, 1951.



PROVISION FOR SHORT-TERM CREDIT TO PRODUCERS

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to make provision for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties, arising from inability to complete harvesting operations or to make delivery of grain, through bank loans guaranteed by the crown with limitations including a limitation to the effect that the liability of the crown to pay losses will not exceed $5 million; moneys payable under the act to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: The Minister of National Defence has just tabled the annual report of the department. I should like to know whether it is his intention to refer it to the special committee on defence expenditures.


Brooke Claxton: As far as I know it is not the practice to refer annual reports to committees. The report is available for consideration by all hon. members of the house.


Gordon Graydon: Including the committee.


Brooke Claxton: Within its terms of reference.



CANADIAN FORCES ACT TO PROVIDE FOR COMPENSATION, PENSIONS, ETC.   CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS   CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT

Brooke Claxton: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 21, respecting the Canadian forces.
He said: I move:
That the amendments made by the Senate to the Bill No. 21 sent up from the House of Commons, intituled: "An act respecting the Canadian forces," be concurred in with the exception of their sixteenth amendment to which this house proposes the following consequential amendment:
That subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (d) of section two of the Veterans Land Act. 1942, as proposed by the Senate be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
" (iii) who, wherever he may have served, is by reason of disability attributable to or incurred during such service in receipt of a pension."
And that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, these amendments really deal with twenty-four acts. The amendments from the other place occupy some seventeen closely printed pages in our Votes and Proceedings. I have compared them with the original sections in Bill No. 21 as passed by this house, but without referring to each of these

Canadian Forces Act
twenty-four acts in their original form it is a little difficult to understand exactly what the amendments made by the other place consist of. I think before we concur in these amendments we should have some explanation with respect to each of them from the minister.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to make that explanation when the hon. member rose. The bill, as hon. members learned when it was before this house, is largely technical in character. A very large number of the amendments were textual in that they substituted the word "army" for "military". When the bill came before the other place it was decided that it would be desirable, instead of making the proposed amendments to the various statutes by deleting one word and substituting another, to set out the section as amended in each case. That was done, and that disposes of all the amendments proposed by the other place with the exception of one.
There is only one amendment which is not of that character. I want to make it plain that all the amendments proposed in the other place, with one single exception, simply have the effect of replacing the whole section with a new section rather than merely substituting for the amended word the word of the amendment. Therefore they are not substantive in any respect whatever. The single exception is also purely of a technical nature. When clause 16 came from the other place it was found there was a clerical error in the amendment to clause 16 as it was proposed. This error would result in the reenactment of a provision of the Veterans Land Act in the same language in which it appeared prior to an amendment made in 1949. That amendment brought the definition of "veteran" in the Veterans Land Act into line with language used in the Pension Act. If we were to accept the proposed amendment to clause 16 in its present form, we would be restoring the law as it existed prior to the 1949 amendment, which of course would be undesirable. In other words, in proposing this series of amendments in the other place the law officers there in one instance used the name of a statute which is no longer its proper name, and I propose to move an amendment to this amendment in order to correct that error.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the
consequential amendment proposed by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is one that should be made, and I am glad to support it. But I feel that with respect to the series of amendments sent to this house by the other place I must say that I regard

them as the most ridiculous set of amendments I have seen in parliament for a long time. The Minister of National Defence has pointed out that, with the single exception of the case which he now seeks to correct, none of the amendments proposed by the other place has any effect in substance whatsoever. All that Their Honours have done is to make the Canadian Forces Act two or three times more bulky than it already was in the form in which it went through this house.
I have taken the trouble, because after all it is our job as members of parliament, to check the amendments proposed by the other place and to compare them with the sections in the House of Commons bill which they seek to amend. I find that out of twenty-nine sections in the bill Their Honours have rewritten in whole or in part twenty-two of them. I find, as the Minister of National Defence has pointed out, that in most cases they have rejected the House of Commons proposal for a simple amendment that just changes the word "military" to "army" or something like that. In its place they propose that the whole of the section be deleted and that the section as amended be put into the amending statute. I appreciate the fact that those who put forward this idea in the other place said that the purpose was to make the law more clear. I suggest that they have added to the confusion.
As the bill was brought into the house by the Minister of National Defence, drafted I take it by our law officers, I think it was not too bad. In each specific case where an act was being amended it was set out in the simplest possible language. For example in subsection 1 of section 3 of our bill we said that wherever the word "military" appeared it should be struck out and there should be substituted therefor the words "naval, army or air". I submit that when one is looking at a statute and learns that it is amended it is far easier to tell what the amendment is if the amending statute draws your attention to the one word that has been changed, pinpointing it as our bill did, rather than having to read the whole of the section over again as Their Honours propose and then go back and read it two or three more times to try to find out what the difference is in case it escaped you the first time you read it.
I submit that Their Honours have done a ridiculous job and have made the whole thing far more confusing. If that is the best they can do in the other place it is time the other place was abolished. Let me give some concrete examples. Section 3 of the bill as passed by this house consisted of seventeen

lines of type. By the way, it is 11 point type, 24 ems wide. Their Honours replaced it with a full page and a half of 9-| point type, 30 ems wide. There is no reason why I should not add to the confusion-since that is what Their Honours have done-by introducing these technical terms. But my point is that if we go through this bill section by section, and accept Their Honours' proposals that we delete a few lines and put in twice as many lines, or that we delete a few lines and put in two or three pages, the result will be that when we get through, instead of having a relatively simple bill such as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) brought in, we will have a very complex document.
I point out further that, in ordinary practice, people who have to refer to statutes do not for the most part refer to the original act and then to the amending statutes. What they normally refer to, in ordinary practice, is an office consolidation. That office consolidation is prepared in such a way that amendments such as these are incorporated in their proper place. I know office consolidations are not supposed to be admitted in court; but in ordinary practice they are used by those who wish to find out what the law is in a given case.
But in addition to the practice of using office consolidations, we have at this particular time in our legislative history the fact that we are revising the statutes of Canada. We passed an amending bill in respect to that only a few days ago. We know from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that when those revised statutes come out they will be known as the revised statutes of 1952, and they will include all the legislative acts passed by parliament up to the end of 1951. It seems to me quite clear from that that these minor technical, one-word changes made by the Minister of National Defence in his bill will be distributed through the various statutes, and this amending bill will no longer be one to which people will have any occasion to refer, at all.
It looks to me as though Their Honours realized they do not have anything to do. They just thought up a job for themselves and, instead of giving the country evidence that they are working, they simply have given the country evidence of the fact that that other institution should be abolished.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is not before the house at the present time. The hon. member should not cast a reflection upon the other place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, no one in this house is more anxious than I am to obey the rules,
Canadian Forces Act
and I respect your stricture that I must not cast a reflection upon Their Honours. They have done it themselves.


An hon. Member:: They "did" it themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They "have done" it themselves. And it is not the first time. I was referring to a few of these cases. Section 4 of our bill said all that needed to be said in four lines of large type. They propose that it be said in ten lines of small type. Accepting Your Honour's ruling I must not comment; but surely I can say to this House of Commons that we ought not to be asked to pass such a ridiculous amendment as that.
Then, I move on to the next, dealing with section 5. We said in our bill all that needed to be said in sixteen lines of large type. They rewrote section 5 to the extent of a full page and a half of small type. The next one, section 6, for some reason or other they did not decide to change. It is fairly long, and I suppose they thought that it is already long enough.
Then we come to the next one, section 7, which is headed "Exchequer Court Act". For what was said in the bill in eleven lines of large type they propose to substitute twenty-two lines of small type. And so it goes on.
I turn to another example, that of section 24 in our bill, in which we dealt with the Statute Lav/ Amendment (Newfoundland) Act-and I congratulate the Minister of National Defence and the law officers of the crown, or whoever it was who drew up the bill, upon doing a good job on section 24. They said all that needed to be said, and said it in fifteen lines of large type. More than half of those lines are very short ones. There it is, set out so that anyone, be he lawyer or layman, can understand it quite clearly. But Their Honours were not satisfied with fifteen lines of large type. Oh no; they propose, in place of those fifteen lines, two full pages of small type.
But the honey of them all, of course, is section 19. Section 19 in our bill is one which deals with the War Service Grants Act, 1944. It is a little longer than some of the others. But Their Honours have taken the forty-eight lines of large type, which said what needed to be said quite clearly, and, -as set out beginning at page 271 of Votes and Proceedings for Wednesday, December 5, they have substituted four full pages of small type. Could anything be more ridiculous? It is completely unnecessary.
It is unnecessary because office consolidations are always prepared. It is particularly unnecessary because we are going to have revised statutes within a very short time. And, not only is it unnecessary, but it means
1762	HOUSE OF
Canadian Forces Act
that the ordinary person looking at these four pages of amendments to this section will have to take a magnifying glass to pore through it, to try to find out what the change was.
The way the bill was brought to the house it was quite clear as to the change the government wanted to make. I have made a number of references to the fact that the bill is set up in large type. It is II point roman, to be exact. Votes and Proceedings is set up in much smaller type-again to be exact it is 9J point excelsior on a 10 point slug.
If the amendments are accepted by this house-and I say they should not be-the bill will have to be reprinted, so that all these amendments may be incorporated in the reprint. When one tries to compare these two sizes and styles of type, it is pretty difficult to estimate what the result will be, so far as the number of pages to be occupied by the amended bill is concerned. It has not yet been reprinted. I take it the reason it has not been reprinted is that there is still a question whether or not this house will agree to the amendments made in the other place. I have made a rough estimate and, having had some experience with these things, my estimate would be that the bill, which now occupies only fourteen pages, will occupy at least thirty-five and perhaps might run to fifty. That is the only practical result of the amendments now before us, namely, that we should substitute for a document which did the job in fourteen pages one which seeks to do the job, although in a more confused manner, in from thirty-five to fifty pages.
I hope it will not be out of order for me to make this reference, namely, that the day after Their Honours passed the bill, arguing that all these changes needed to be made, with this resulting bulky document, in that same other place senators got up and said there was too much printing being done around this place, and they proposed that a committee of the Senate should go into the question and find out if there is not some way in which the amount of printing can be cut down. Well, even Your Honour will have to admit that that only adds to the ridiculousness of the whole picture. It is complete inconsistency. What I said a while ago, when Your Honour ruled me out of order, is certainly true.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, amendments read the second time and concurred in.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY  DEEP WATERWAY BETWEEN MONTREAL AND LAKE ERIE

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 33, to establish the St. Lawrence seaway authority.


Mr. Adamson:: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Lionel Chevrier: I have here a statement
which explains the purpose of the bill. However, the other evening a number of questions remained unanswered. I would deem it a privilege if I could make the statement and answer the questions at the same time. I would prefer to do that in committee of the whole, and if that is agreeable to the house, I would proceed on that basis.


Agar Rodney Adamson: If the minister does not propose to make a statement on this project, I should like to say-


Lionel Chevrier: No, that is not the position I have taken. I have a statement here which I think should be placed on the record at this time in so far as the bill itself is concerned. It explains the purposes of the bill. Any of the remarks that I have made thus far have dealt with the resolution and with the subject in a general way, but the remarks I should like to make now deal with the bill itself. There has been no definite explanation of the bill. Since I must make the statement now I shall, of necessity, have to make one later in replying to many of the questions that have been raised. I simply asked the permission of the house to do both at the same time when we are in committee of the whole, and wondered if my hon. friend would not consent to that.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I feel that on the second reading the whole purpose of the bill cam be debated in a general way, whereas .in committee of the whole a more detailed discussion takes place. If the minister would not mind, I feel it would probably help the debate if he would make his statement at this time when we are dealing with the bill in a general way.


Lionel Chevrier: If it is the wish of the house, then I bow to it. I hope that during the course of the debate I shall not be charged by hon. members with not replying to the questions.
I am now offering to deal with them to the best of my ability, and I hope to the satisfaction of hon. members who have raised them, but I shall not be able to do that now until we are in committee of the whole.



II, 1951

[Stage Direction]
The bill which is now before the house provides for the establishment of a corporation to be called the St. Lawrence seaway authority. The main provisions of the bill fall into four parts:	one, constitution of
authority; two, purposes, capacities and ' powers of the authority; three, tolls; four, financial provisions.
The authority to be set up under the bill consists of a president and two other members to be appointed by the governor in council. They will hold office for a term not exceeding ten years and will be paid salaries to be fixed by the governor in council.
The authority will be an agent of His Majesty, and will have power to enter into contracts either in its own name or in the name of His Majesty. It will also be enabled to hold property in its own name and to bring or defend legal actions.
The president will be the chief executive officer, and he will be charged with the direction and control of the business of the authority. The president may, subject to the provisions of any bylaw, delegate any of his powers to the other two members. The authority will be authorized to employ such officers and employees as- it may determine, and these officers and employees will not be officers or employees of His Majesty. There is provision for a pension fund for the members, officers and employees of the authority.
The purposes for which the authority is established are found in section 10 of the bill. This section provides that the authority is incorporated for the purposes of:
(a)	acquiring lands for and constructing, maintaining and operating all such works as may be necessary to provide and maintain, either wholly in Canada or in conjunction with works undertaken by an appropriate authority in the United States, a deep waterway between the port of Montreal and lake Erie;
(b)	constructing, maintaining and operating all such works in connection with such a deep waterway as the governor in council may deem necessary to fulfil any obligation undertaken or to be undertaken by Canada pursuant to any present or future agreement.
Section 11 of the bill provides that the authority shall, for the aforesaid purposes, have the capacities and powers of a natural person as if it were a corporation incorporated by letters patent under the Great Seal.
The authority is also given power to lease lands, property and water power, to borrow money up to a maximum limit of $300 million, and to manage and operate any canals or works similar or related to the works covered by the act that may be entrusted to the authority by the governor in council.
St. Lawrence Waterway The authority is also given power to expropriate land and the provisions of the Expropriation Act are made applicable to the exercise of this power by the authority.
Section 15 gives the authority power to charge tolls on vessels navigating the canals and their cargoes. In the first instance the authority establishes the tolls to be charged. The tariffs are filed with the board of transport commissioners, and any interested person may file a complaint with the board as to unjust discrimination. The board will then make a finding on the complaint and report this finding to the authority. There is provision for appeal, and section 52 of the Railway Act relating to appeals is made applicable to the findings of the board.
The bill provides that the tolls charged by the authority shall be fair and reasonable, and shall provide a revenue sufficient to defray the cost to the authority of its operations in carrying out its purposes, which cost shall include-
Ca) payments in respect of the interest on amounts borrowed by the authority.
(b)	amounts sufficient to amortize the principal of the amounts borrowed over a period not exceeding fifty years, and
(c)	the cost of operating and maintaining the canals and works under the administration of the authority, including all operating costs of the authority and such reserves as may be approved by the minister.
Provision is made in section 17 to cover the establishment of tolls in case of works constructed by the authority in conjunction with works undertaken by an appropriate authority of the United States.
Sections 25 to 27 inclusive provide for loans and guarantees by the crown. Section 25 provides that the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the governor in council, may make loans to the authority out of the consolidated revenue fund or guarantee payment of principal and interest on money borrowed by the authority. It should be noted that no such loans and guarantees shall be made or given in any fiscal year except to the extent that parliament has authorized such loans and guarantees in that year. Parliamentary control of the financing of the authority is thus ensured.
Section 26 provides for temporary loans to be made by the Minister of Finance to the authority not to exceed an aggregate amount of $10 million. The power given to the authority to borrow is limited to an aggregate of $300 million, so that the amount of the loans or indebtedness shall not at any time exceed
[Stage Direction]
St. Lawrence Waterway this maximum. The accounts and financial transactions of the authority are to be audited by the Auditor General.
There are, Mr. Speaker, a number of other sections in the bill which speak for themselves, and upon which I do not think I should make any comment at this time. I did feel, however, that a short statement should be made as to the general purport of the bill, and as hon. members have seen it can be divided into these four divisions. I believe that is all I should say at the moment.
Agar Rodney Adamson: I am
very glad to have the statement of the minister at this time on this most important work. The only criticism one could possibly make of the development of the St. Lawrence, both for the purposes of navigation and power, is that it probably comes fifty years too late. The development of the St. Lawrence is a further step in the fulfilment of our national destiny, called the national policy by Sir John A. Macdonald at confederation. During the time of the financial panic in the United States Roosevelt said that the only thing the United States had to fear was fear. We are less prone to the hypnosis of fear than the people of the United States. The only thing we Canadians have to fear is timidity. When we have failed, our failures have all come from leaving undone the things we ought to have done, and undeveloped the things we should have developed. The St. Lawrence is a link in the chain of the national policy as dreamed of by the fathers of confederation. Like the transcontinental railways, the project will be a great unifying work for the stability and the solidarity of Canada. Sir John saw Canada as a great industrial nation, and we must not lose that dream. This development is but a part of it.
It used to be said that trade follows the flag. The modern adaptation of this saying is that industry follows power. Ever since the industrial revolution it has been the history that industry developed where there was an adequate source of primary power. Up till recent times this has been coal. Now it is electricity, in Canada developed by water and gravity; and it may be, possibly during our lives, derived from atomic force.
The national policy, as I see it at the half century, shall be that the first responsibility of any federal government to Canada is to encourage the development of every source of primary power, no matter where - it is situated in Canada. We have recent examples of developments-for example, the Kitimat development in British Columbia, which has been the result of an amazing bit

of foresight on the part of a group of industrial people who are developing that part of the country in northern British Columbia.
I believe it is part of our national responsibility that every power resource that can be developed must be developed, and that it is a prime responsibility of the federal government to do so. I wish here to say that the power resources-whether they be in the maritimes, such as Passamaquoddy, the Chignecto canal, the great untapped developments of north-flowing rivers from the height of land to the Arctic ocean, or the developments in the prairies, such as the South Saskatchewan and elsewhere-are all part of our national heritage. They are all part of the vision of development that the fathers of confederation had. Unless we are prepared to see that every single bit of natural resources is developed in Canada, we are not going to meet the challenge and to achieve the destiny envisioned by the pioneers, the fathers of confederation.
The next and equally important requirement in addition to power is an adequate supply of raw material. If this is not available at the site of the power development or the coal mine then cheap transportation- and water transpprtation is by far the cheapest-must be available to bring the raw material to the power; because there is an economic limitation on the distance over which power can be transmitted. For all practical purposes that distance is about 400 miles. The unique feature of the St. Lawrence is that it provides both power and transportation. It will bring to the sea an industrial area with a production at present as great as that of the whole of the continents of Africa and Asia.
Canada's industrial growth to an industrial nation has taken place in the comparatively recent past in conjunction with the development of electric power. I want to mention for example the development of the province of Manitoba. Manitoba has not been thought cf as an industrial, but rather as an agricultural province. Yet figures recently given in this house by the new hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) showed that Manitoba today is an industrial province and is shortly going to be one of major proportions. That situation has been brought about largely because of the development of hydroelectric power in that province.
Canada's economy must be strengthened by doing as much as possible of the manufacturing and processing of our raw products before they are exported. Power and population are essential for this purpose. In the Pre-Cambrian shield north of the agricultural belt in the central provinces, we have an

enormous base metal and other mineral potential. Much of this has now been developed, but a great deal more awaits development because of the question of transportation and the question of bringing to the mine the necessary fuel for smelting.
A friend of mine, who is connected with one of the major base metal companies, said that, were this transportation and power project to be developed, his company would seriously consider sending their concentrates for smelting either to tidewater or to the canal. This would not only result in a lower price for the final product but make available vast new deposits of low grade ore in the north country.
The steel industry, which is probably of the most vital importance to the economy of any country, is greatly dependent upon this deep waterway and upon the power as well. I remember that some years ago, when the Steep Rock development was fully proved but had not yet been properly opened up, when $10 million of new capital was required to develop the mine, we unfortunately had to go outside of Canada to obtain that capital. The development was financed through United States capital, and in consequence a great deal of that ore will have a primary duty to go to United States mills. One can understand that, but at the time to me it seemed a pity that we were not able to do in Canada the essential financing of that iron ore deposit. The question of Labrador of course is a major one for the economy of the whole continent, I might say almost the whole world, because with the gradual exhaustion of. the central iron range in Minnesota, and the lack of any new discoveries, apart from Steep Rock, of high grade iron ore in the centre of this continent, the entire continent- I speak continentally-faces a shortage of the essential sinew of her economic production.
The iron ore from Labrador is a natural challenge to us in Canada, and it is imperative that our steel industry, no matter where it is situated at the present time, shall be able to have a sufficient supply of that iron ore to maintain and to increase itself, because the steel industry is the one on which the whole economy of our basic and secondary industry depends. Steps should be taken to ensure that the ore from this development, or sufficient of it, should be made available to our own steel industry.
I then come to the shipping industry. A speech was made in this house the other day with which I regret I cannot agree. With an adequate canal from tidewater to the great lakes we may expect a tremendous increase in the shipping industry in Canada. We have considerable facilities now and we have
St. Lawrence Waterway the ability to increase those shipbuilding plants along the great lakes. I am speaking this way because I disagree with what has been said about the danger to this industry. To give the history of the Panama canal, the same argument was put up in opposition to the Panama canal, that it might destroy the shipping industry along the Pacific coast. Actually the very reverse happened, and today from Vancouver right down along the Pacific coast the shipbuilding industry has been a major factor in the development of the economy of that coast. So will, I am sure, the shipping industry benefit from the opening up of this deep canal.
The canal is to be twenty-seven feet deep, and that will adequately take care of, I believe it is, very nearly 90 per cent of all the ocean-going ships that are in existence at the present time. Therefore we have no real danger for the shipbuilding industry. As a matter of fact we are likely to have a tremendously increased market for that industry.
Special types of ships will be constructed for the trade of the great lakes, as there have been special types of shipping constructed for nearly all the trade of the world. A special type of ship ran from the Argentine to England with chilled meat. There are other special types of ships-or there used to be-designed for that, and until the government of Great Britain ceased to buy meat, or was unable to buy meat, from the Argentine, these ships plied the very lucrative trade. Other special types of ships were built for frozen meat from New Zealand and Australia. I mention this merely as an example of the extent to which our shipbuilding industry on the great lakes may be expected to expand. Unquestionably new types of ships will be developed in Canada for specific trade that we do not know very much about at the present time, not merely bulk ore carriers and bulk grain carriers but specific ships developed for various different trades.
Then I come to the coal industry. It was said in the railway committee that the economic limit of Canadian coal from eastern Canada was somewhere near Montreal. I think the president of the Canadian National Railways said that the economic limit of Canadian coal was somewhere in the Montreal district, or around Montreal. With adequate shipping facilities-and, Mr. Speaker, it is not at all beyond the realm of possibility that with modern icebreakers the St. Lawrence can be kept open practically all the year-the area served by maritime coal is surely likely to be greatly expanded with this development. Up to now we in the
1766

St. Lawrence Waterway central provinces have been dependent very largely upon United States coal, and the new generating stations at Windsor and Toronto are completely dependent, or were dependent, upon United States coal. If we can extend the area in which we could use our own coal, surely that is * one of the useful things that this project will bring about.


Lionel Chevrier: Hear, hear.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am glad the minister says "hear, hear". I do not know how far that coal can be economically shipped, but I do believe that this development will greatly enlarge the area.
I mention these things, Mr. Speaker, because this project is a great link in the development of Canada as a whole. It must be considered not alone for its benefit to one part of Canada. It will, I think, be found to be of great and enormous benefit to the country as a whole.
I am not going to go into the opposition to it at great length, but I think something should be said in this house as to the opposition to the St. Lawrence deep waterways- both that, and the power development. The deep waterway has been' under active discussion for twenty-seven years. Tentative legislation has been under consideration for that length of time. I think the first bill was presented in 1931 or 1932 by the government of Mr. Bennett.
Almost all the opposition is from extremely powerful lobbies in the United States and I think some mention must be made of this fact at this time. I do not propose to criticize in any way the United States form of government, but the fact is that under their system a powerful minority can and will block, and has blocked, an essential development for the national good in order to serve its own selfish interests. I say that without rancour or any feeling of animosity. Those who are opposed to this are acting in their own interests and because they feel that that is the proper thing for them to do.
I say in all seriousness that we are never likely to get an agreement on this matter through the United States congress. There are names and personalities which I might cite who have set themselves up in opposition to this development and have been and still are able to defy the wishes of both the major political parties in the United States and of every president since Coolidge. There is no reason to believe that their power has diminished in any way and we are not being realistic if we expect them to change.
This opposition is just like two men who jointly own a tool shed in which they store the necessary tools to prepare and keep their


gardens fertile and prosperous. Each has a key to open the door which has two locks. One man comes over with his dog and little boy who prevent him from putting the key in the door and opening it. In this case the United States government has asked repeatedly for this development but the dog, in the shape of the United States Senate, and the boy, in the shape of the United States House of Representatives, have refused repeatedly to let their Uncle Sam use his key and thereby pass the legislation. I think we must recognize these facts and be prepared to go ahead with the project no matter what happens.
If there is anything that is likely to cause delay it is for this house to show reluctance to proceed with the waterway and the power development, which latter of course is a natural resource of Ontario and Quebec, with resolution and determination, and alone, if need be. We hope to have the co-operation of the United States because that would be infinitely better; but, if that is not to be, there should be no holding back on this development. There can be no saying that we have not enough information. There can be no suggesting that we should have more time to study this, that or the other angle.
All these angles have been studied and studied for decades. Competent engineers and economists and businessmen have almost unanimously backed the project. The time is now. There can be and there must be no further delay. We have the know-how, the money and the vision-we must put them to work. I had hoped that both bills would be considered at the same time because a great deal of what I have said applies to both the power and navigation projects. If there was ever a time when we must be resolute, it is now and in connection with this matter. We cannot be put off even though we get no assistance whatever from the United States.
The St. Lawrence canal must be proceeded with. No longer can the production of an area which equals the production of the entire continents of Africa and Asia be denied raw materials and adequate cheap transportation to the sea. That is the challenge. That is the problem facing this house today. I say in all seriousness: Let us get on with it; let us brook no more interference; let us show that timidity is no part of the heritage left to us by the fathers of confederation. Our destiny as a nation demands action now.


Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I think we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) for the splendid way in which he has presented the purpose of this bill and the other bill which is to follow. I understand that we will be in order when discussing

this bill to set up the St. Lawrence seaway authority to refer to the other bill with regard to the development of hydroelectric power. The presentation by the Minister of Transport was both comprehensive and logical. He not only gave a concise history of this great scheme but also showed the tremendous benefits that will accrue not only to Canada but also to the United States from the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway and hydroelectric development. In fact I find it particularly hard at this time to get on my feet and say anything that the minister has not already said, but at the same time I have a few random thoughts that I should like to present to the house. I might say that on several occasions I have spoken in this chamber on the subject we are now discussing, and furthermore I have addressed service club meetings in both eastern Ontario and northern New York state. I find that there is general unanimity of thought in this section of the province of Ontario and in northern New York state.
Unfortunately, however, there are still many sections of the United States, particularly on the Atlantic seaboard and in the deep south, where the majority opinion is against the building of this great national and international project. In the issue of Fortune magazine of December, 1950, there appears an article entitled, "Battle of the St. Lawrence", written by Freeman Lincoln. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read the opening two paragraphs. They are as follows:
A brief look at the map of the world will do for a snap judgment as to the common sense of the man made ditch across the isthmus of Panama and of that other ditch linking the Mediterranean and Red seas. Strong instinct says that the building of the Panama and Suez canals at whatever cost was inevitable and right; that if they had not been built there must have been sharp and dirty knife work at some political cross roads. On the proposition of constructing a deep waterway in the St. Lawrence river to tie the North American great lakes to the Atlantic ocean and so to the world the verdict will be the same. The St. Lawrence seaway will give access to an inland sea whose busyness is indicated by the fact that more yearly tonnage passes through one of its bottlenecks, the locks at Sault Ste. Marie, than passes through the Panama, Suez, Manchester Ship and Kiel canals combined. It will give Canada and the United States together a new seacoast more than 8,000 miles long with ports such as Montreal, Toronto, Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Chicago and Milwaukee. The project also includes a power station on the St. Lawrence that will allow Canada and the United States to divide twelve billion kilowatt hours of cheaply produced electric power each year, enough to take care of greater New York's annual needs.
Further on, in explanation of a map of North America, there is a short sentence which I think is also worth putting on the record. It reads:
The St. Lawrence seaway project, now battered and hackneyed after fifty years of futile argument.
St. Lawrence Waterway will provide deep water transportation between the Atlantic ocean and cities on the great lakes, with a hydroelectric power station of greater capacity than Grand Coulee added for good measure.
The article is worth reading in its entirety. It is a wonderful record of the history and development of the St. Lawrence seaway project, but the article also shows the powerful lobby that has been against this scheme for so many years. There is an organization in the United States known as "The National St. Lawrence Project Conference", the subtitle of which is, "A Nationwide Organization in Opposition". There are no less than 250 separate organizations within the framework of this one organization. Offices are maintained in Washington, and the sole purpose is a constant lobby against the seaway in the United States congress.
We have seen how successful the lobby has been in the past. We have seen how it has deprived not only Canada but many American states as well of the advantage of this vast scheme, which must go through. I feel that the best method has been devised in order for Canada to proceed with the scheme on its own. As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said to a group of college students and graduates at St. Lawrence university in Canton, New York, a year ago last June, Canada has been very patient but our patience is wearing very thin.
In setting up an authority, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has outlined to the house, we will have found a means of financing this great project without the necessity of calling on the hard-pressed taxpayers of Canada. As has been explained, tolls are to be levied against ships and their cargoes, ships of all nations and cargoes of all kinds. These tolls will be applied against the normal operating expenses of the canal that are involved in keeping the canal open for navigation and the locks running, and furthermore they will be used to amortize the bonds.
Unfortunately much publicity was recently given through the press of Canada to a statement made that the farmers of the west would be obliged to pay for this great scheme. They will make their contribution but it will only be a part of the payment, and I do not think anybody minds paying a contribution if it means a reduction in freight rates. I understand an estimate has been made that freight rates will be reduced approximately four cents a bushel by shipping through the great lakes and the St. Lawrence seaway. The statement claiming that the western farmers will pay for the seaway is unfair because all ships and all
1768	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway cargoes, as has been said before, will be paying tolls. I regret that this statement was made by a prominent Canadian ship owner, and furthermore that it was made in the other place.
I find it very hard to understand the attitude of certain members of the house. They preface their remarks by saying that they are all for the St. Lawrence seaway, and then they proceed to pick it all to pieces. It is quite evident that this attitude is a sectional one and completely cuts across party lines, as demonstrated by the speech just made by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) and the speech made last week in this chamber by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson). I wonder if those members who preface their remarks by saying that they are going to support the seaway and then try to throw every obstacle in the way of the passage of the legislation are not doing so for one of two reasons, or perhaps both reasons. The first, of course, would be to have their remarks published in the home papers for the reading enjoyment of their constituents. The other reason, a little more sinister, is that by introducing this delaying action these bills would not be passed at this session, but would have to wait until the next one. By that time they believe they will have mustered enough force to bring pressure against passage of the bills once and for all. I hate to think that this could be the motive. Nevertheless, speaking as they have, one cannot help feeling there is something more behind it than just the procedure of addressing Mr. Speaker.
I must say the statements of certain members, particularly from Ontario, are very different from those issued by the premier of Ontario and by the chairman of the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission, both of whom have demanded-not requested-have demanded immediate action. Furthermore I am told the government of Quebec has signified its intention to make further developments at Beauharnois, and also in connection with new hydroelectric installations at Lachine.
Living as I do on the banks of the upper reaches of the St. Lawrence river, naturally I am unequivocally supporting the two bills.
I live twelve miles above Prescott. Every day during the season of navigation I see the small canal-size steamers plying their trade back and forth. When the grain begins to move I see the large upper lake freighters bringing their vast cargoes of wheat down to the Prescott grain elevator, where it must be stored for transshipment to Montreal in the small canal-sized freighters. What a waste, to see these small ships of canal-size plying back and forth, when one realizes that


one of the upper lake steamers can carry as much as ten of the smaller ships. The economy of the whole system is unsound. It means larger crews, larger fuel consumption and more of everything, thus bringing about an uneconomic system.
We see also the small tankers coming up from Montreal laden with refined gasoline, and returning empty. Some day I visualize the large tankers going to the head of the lakes, and there filling with the petroleum now being piped half way across the continent from the Alberta oil wells to the vast storage tanks at Superior, Wisconsin. This would bring Canadian oil to the refineries at Montreal, which are now dependent for their oil supply upon the pipe line built during the war from Portland, Maine, to Montreal. The crude oil is piped from Portland after being unloaded from the tankers that pick it up in South America, the Near East and Texas. This is another reason why it is essential that the larger tankers be permitted to carry Canadian crude oil rather than the crude oil produced from wells in other parts of the world.
I find it very difficult to understand why North Americans are so loath to take advantage of the great God-given resources of our two nations. Forty miles below Prescott one sees the awe-inspiring sight of the Long Sault rapids. At this point a power dam capable of producing 2,200,000 horsepower is to be built. This is to be divided equally between Ontario and the state of New York.
In eastern Ontario I do not visualize vast wharves connected with the loading and unloading of grain, nor do I see the building of vast drydocks; but I do see us on the threshold of the largest constant potential supply of electrical power in the world with every port along the upper reaches of the St. Lawrence river and the great lakes a potential seaport.
My mind goes back three years to the power blackouts we had not only in eastern but throughout central and southern Ontario. We have been warned by responsible engineers, and other men in authority, that we may look forward to a similar power shortage within four years, unless the mighty waters of the St. Lawrence river are harnessed. If we are obliged to undergo these objectionable blackouts, not only are they an inconvenience to householders but, far more important, they put a tremendous crimp in industry and are seriously detrimental to the proper operation of farms.
In a time of peace a shortage of power is unfortunate; in the event of war a power shortage is a national disaster. Under no circumstances must this be allowed to occur.

The answer to the power shortage, the answer to additional navigational facilities, the answer to the proper development of the ore bodies in Labrador, all lie in the passage of these two bills now before the house.
If we cannot have the support of our neighbours in the United States, then we in Canada must go ahead on our own. Naturally we would prefer to have a joint undertaking. But in the event that these lobbies about which I spoke earlier are so powerful that they will prevent the legislation going through the United States congress, we have no alternative but that of going ahead on our own with the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the building of the St. Lawrence seaway.
I commend highly the stand our government has taken in this connection.
I am confident most Canadians rejoice in the government's having devised a means whereby Canada can go ahead on its own, with this tremendous scheme, and without any further delays, such as those which have been caused by the united efforts of certain wealthy minority vested interests.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: St. Lawrence Waterway turned. On that occasion the Hon. William Hamilton Merritt made a speech from which I should like to quote a few extracts. The ceremony took place near the little village of Allanburg, and two hundred persons were present. In his introduction, he said:
We are assembled here this day for the purpose of removing the first earth from a canal which will, by the shortest distance, connect the greatest extent of inland waters in the whole world; and it gives me peculiar pleasure to find that the line of this canal has been, located in this neighbourhood, the inhabitants of which have tinned out on all occasions with a zeal and alacrity worthy of the undertaking.
He expressed some of the difficulties with which they were faced in this way:
We were fully aware of the supposed magnitude of the undertaking; we were sensible that the personal interest of the capital and talent of the district was against us, and that we had no cooperation to expect from them, which the result fully proved. Every attempt has been made to get his project taken up by able hands, but not one individual of extensive capital in the province, or in any high official station, has given it the least assistance, except the Hon. John H. Dunn.
They had other difficulties. For instance, it was hard to get local subscribers to pay up their subscriptions, because it was rumoured that the people in Quebec who had subscribed had not paid up their subscriptions. He enumerated the benefits that would accrue in this way:
Instead of remaining in this dull, supine state, in which we have been for years past, we shall mingle in the bustle and active scenes of business; our commodities will be enhanced in value, and a general tide of prosperity will be witnessed on the whole line and surrounding country. In short, gentlemen, we are situated in a country favoured with every advantage, in soil, climate and situation; its resources remain only to be known to draw men of capital amongst us; and we trust, now that improvements have been commenced, it will increase, and that we may witness the same spirit of enterprise here that our neighbours, the Americans, possess in so eminent a degree.
Further on he says:
We remove the only natural barrier of importance
the falls of Niagara. The rapids between Prescott and Lachine command the next consideration.
Just as they do today. There is one more paragraph I should like to read which makes some comment on what the people thought of the government of the day:
When we contemplate the natural advantages we possess over the Americans in our water communication, it is astonishing to think of the apathy and indifference that have hitherto prevailed amongst us on this subject. If we inquire the cause, nine-tenths of us would blame the government.
Just as we do today.
There never was a more erroneous idea. We are ever inclined to move the burden from our own shoulders, and can only blame ourselves.
Then in one last sentence he says:
It is a rare occurrence that measures of great national improvement originate from the administration of the government.

Most of this work, Mr. Speaker, was done by hand. Diggers were hired at 63 cents a day, Upper and Lower Canada subscribed for stock, and by five years later-in January, 1829-boats were able to go from lake to lake. Since that time two canals have been built. One was built in 1870 and another was started just before the first war and was completed in the early thirties. I hope hon. members will forgive me for giving part of this historical background.
In those early days, when money was scarce, the people had vision and foresight. There was less dependence upon the government than there is today, and they tackled something more out of proportion to their means than we are asked to do today. It is true that the profit motive was present there, but in those early days the people of Upper and Lower Canada united their resources to build something that was for the good of Canada as a whole. The same spirit I would say is evident among members of this house. Practically all members are in favour of this project. Likewise, I think that we as members should support the government in projects in other parts of Canada if it can be proved that they have a good economic basis and can stand on their own feet.
I think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) made a brilliant exposition of this subject in introducing the bill the other day. I would be interested to see figures showing prospective earnings of the navigational part of this project. I think we all should like to see such figures. In the light of present-day requirements of iron ore and of the movement of other commodities, we should probably be able to get figures as to the minimum tonnage that would be required in any one year to liquidate this amount of money that has to be spent.
I am convinced that we should construct steel mills to process our own iron ore in this country as much as possible, but I would be adverse to withholding any iron ore from our friends to the south in the United States. I think we should remember that our country was built up by iron and steel from their mills.
I do not agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) when he says that this resolution is only window dressing for the purpose of providing power for the province of Ontario. I am not conversant with the engineering part of the program, but I imagine that one project is a complement to the other. In any case, the province of Ontario will pay in full for its power, and I think it is time that we clear up this bottleneck of shipping in the St. Lawrence.

The minister said that money would need to be spent on the Welland ship canal for dredging, and that the locks were adequate. There are seven locks on the Welland ship canal. Locks Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 are single. Locks Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are twin; they are called twin flight locks. They are built that way because of the contour of the land which is the Niagara escarpment. These locks are built end to end, and they succeed each other much like the steps on a stair. Their total lift is 139i feet. A few hundred yards from the top of lock No. 6 is lock No. 7, where boats are lifted to the summit level which is practically the level of the water in lake Erie. At the present time when shipping is busy in the canal, lock No. 7 is a bottleneck. Certainly in years to come, if the canal gets busier, I would think that lock No. 7 would need to be a twin lock. There are many industries along the canal. It is the hope that the minister will give favourable consideration in regard to the naming of Port Colborne, which is situated at the lake Erie end of the canal, as a port of registry.
In conclusion, I would say that the people of Welland county are much in favour of this double project, because in times past we have been short of power, and it will not be long now before we shall need more power in that area where power is produced; we should also like to get an adequate gateway to the Atlantic.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lamblon West):: Mr. Speaker, at this late stage in the session I welcome the introduction of this bill, as I think do most hon. members. I do not intend to take up a great deal of the time of the house because we have had some exceptionally fine speeches by hon. members with regard to the merits of the bill, and to go into the matter in detail would be to repeat, to a great extent, what has been said before.
First, though, I should like to disagree entirely with what the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) said a few minutes ago as to some hon. members who did not share his enthusiasm for this project and who in the course of his remarks indicated that some hon. members-the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), I think, and some from Ontario-were speaking for a political purpose. I think hon. members will agree with me that any member who had occasion to speak, and who did not share the optimism of many of the rest of us but had some reservations, was not speaking for political purposes but rather was speaking in the interest of his riding, of his province and, I am sure as he thought, on behalf of the people of the Dominion of Canada.
St. Lawrence Waterway
Mr. Speaker, I come from Sarnia, which is in an area on the great lakes which adjoins the river St. Clair. Naturally I am quite enthusiastic about this project; and, as has been said before, I only regret that it was not started many years ago when no doubt labour and materials could have been obtained at much lower prices than those prevailing at the moment. Even at this late date the government has been well advised to undertake this project, not only from a commercial standpoint but from the standpoint of what it might mean to the defence of our own country and from the standpoint of the part that we may be able to play in sharing in the defence of our ideals.
There is one idea that is shared by most hon. members-and I want to be quite plain and factual about it. It is this. I do not think any hon. member would espouse this, or any other project, if it were going to benefit his own area to a certain extent and damage other areas to a greater extent. Hon. members are certainly to be commended on the broad approach they have taken to this idea. Some reservations were made, and I think they were made honestly. We must give those who made those reservations credit for their intent and their modesty in the manner in which the reservations were made. I think that we of the central part of Canada share with the people from the west and the maritimes in their points of view and in their problems. This is one move that is being made for the development of our natural resources. This is a scheme that will no doubt play a big part not only in the increase of wealth and production in the west but I hope in the maritimes as well as in the central provinces. I share the opinion of most hon. members when I say that we should view this project fairly, as we should view the development of other natural resources which do not necessarily affect the central provinces, but do affect the west and the maritimes. I say, as did one of my associates in this party, that the South Saskatchewan scheme should also be given prompt consideration. It seems to be worthy of the consideration of the house. In addition to that area there may be other projects in the west which should be gone on with to develop our natural resources and to make Canada the country that we hope it may be and will be. I know I speak for the Ontario members when I say we share the perplexities of the hon. members from the west and the maritimes. We know that a further development of our natural resources will bring prosperity to those areas and also will be of great help to the different areas of Canada. We should

St. Lawrence Waterway not forget the projects that have been advanced so often not only by members of the party to which I belong but also by members of other parties. I refer to the Chignecto canal and the Passamaquoddy development. There are others. I think the maritimers have been very patient and very fair in this house, in view of what they have had to-I was going to say, suffer. I do hope that when this project is undertaken it will receive the close co-operation of the different provinces. I am now speaking of the ore to be mined and smelted. I recall the statement made by the minister the other day that part of this development came within the jurisdiction of the provinces. I do hope that our government will negotiate, so to speak, with the different provinces, so that instead of exporting this ore in its raw state to our friends to the south we may have mills, whether they be in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario or Quebec, or wherever they may be, that will give a great deal of employment to the people of our country. If that is done our iron ore will not be exported in the form in which we used to export our pulpwood. The construction of steel mills will be a great factor in our economy, and it will be a great project for the maritimes. We can probably build along this waterway new mills to smelt steel, which we badly need. Steel, Mr. Speaker, is the most important factor in our industrial development. I think it is more important than ever before, and the development of this country depends to a great extent on an increased production of steel. In the furthering of this huge development I hope that those who have some responsibility for increasing the production of steel will see the opportunity and the necessity of increasing the production of that necessary product, which is in such short supply today.
Without repeating, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. As I see this picture developing along the great lakes

and no doubt the idea will be shared by many who have been to different parts of Europe and have seen the Ruhr valley and the great industrial development there- it is going to take time, but many areas along that waterway will become large industrial areas because of this development. This country is not known so much as an agricultural country today; it is becoming a great industrial nation. The more we consider the necessity for smelting our own iron into steel the more important it will be for Canadians as a whole. I should like to emphasize that I would hate to see too much of this ore go to the United States in its raw condition, because we in this country have the necessary initiative and engineering ability to undertake any project. I am glad to be one of those who

share the view not only of hon. members but of the people of the country that we are happy that at last we have taken this matter under advisement, with the determination to promote it and not stall any longer.
Unfortunately we have been dependent on the United States for co-operation for a great many years. I do not hesitate for one moment to congratulate those in government today, whether in Ontario or Ottawa, who say that we are ready to go it and to go it alone. I think the people on the other side of the border realize that we are not fooling. I am satisfied in my own mind that we are not, and that we do not intend to. If the challenge is accepted and if they see the necessity of coming into partnership with us in this country in this undertaking it will mean much not only to the United States but to ourselves as well.
A moment ago I mentioned the Ruhr and the great development I could see in this country along this waterway. I can see huge investments and new industries of all sorts, which will mean the development in many ways of our different natural resources. Considerable employment will result, and no doubt this will prove an impetus for the government to increase immigration into this country, which is so necessary for the development of our natural resources. Here and there along the route of this waterway certain projects are in the offing for the development of harbours and so on; and in the development of this project I assume the government will take the long range view. I do hope that this project will be developed before too long.
There is one other angle I should like to discuss, and perhaps the minister can check me on this before I go into details. The St. Lawrence seaway authority is being incorporated for several purposes, and I wonder just where the different municipalities will stand with respect to taxes.


Lionel Chevrier: The municipalities would come under the statement brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) which provides that if there is a certain amount of government property in a municipality-I have forgotten the percentage-they would be entitled to certain taxes.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I understand that this
authority will be a crown corporation. The Minister of Finance stated, I think in February, 1950, that payments in lieu of taxes would be made under agreements between crown companies and municipalities which would be fair and equitable under all the conditions. I think those were about his exact words. In fairness to any municipality which might benefit I think there should be a

revision of ideas with respect to these payments by crown companies in lieu of taxes. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is in his seat and I am going to take advantage of this opportunity to make this statement. We are proud to have in Sarnia the Polymer Corporation, a crown company. On one side of that corporation is the Dow Chemical plant and on the other side the plant of Imperial Oil Limited. Up to a year ago the crown company paid to the township a certain sum in lieu of taxes. Under the new legislation brought down this crown company, which is engaging in commercial business, was to pay what was fair and equitable. I might mention that next year Dow Chemical will pay $50,000 in taxes. I am not mentioning Imperial Oil. Polymer is now within the municipality and the agreement reached between the municipality and the crown company provides that the crown company will pay $45,000 in lieu of taxes.
That may seem a large sum to some people, but we must remember that these chemical companies are huge empires. They are not some little industry put up on a building lot. In fairness to the municipalities and to the crown companies there should be a sharing of responsibility in the future which has not been evidenced in the past. I think we all agree that any industry creates certain obligations on the part of the municipality by way of education, services and that sort of thing. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce will agree with me when I say that Polymer should be assessed at five or six times what Dow Chemical are assessed, and yet they have made a settlement for $45,000. I do not know what other crown companies across this country are doing, but I am concerned about the high taxes in our community. If it is not possible to reopen the 1951 arrangement, then I think the 1952 payment should be based on the statement made by the Minister of Finance and the taxes paid should be fair and equitable under all circumstances.
I think the majority of hon. members desire the early passage of this legislation, and I reiterate the hope expressed by the last several speakers that this project will be undertaken immediately because it is something which will be of great benefit to all.


Mr. D. A. Riley (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, before I forget I should like to compliment the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) upon what he said about the maritime provinces and the people who populate that part of Canada. I .do not know why I should feel so kindly disposed toward the hon. member for Lambton West when just recently his native city took from my town a most capable executive director. But I am sure the people of Saint John will find that
St. Lawrence Waterway the keenness of their disappointment is somewhat dulled now that the hon. member has spoken so intelligently on behalf of our provinces.
My first inclination is to compliment the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) upon the brilliant and comprehensive way in which he presented his statement in respect to the setting up of a St. Lawrence seaway authority. I know the keenness of the interest of the Minister of Transport in matters such as this, and I am fully cognizant of the great role he has played in the development of this country during the years he has been Minister of Transport. I cannot think of anyone whom the people of Canada would rather see present such a bill as this to the House of Commons.
I have listened with increasing interest to the numerous speeches which have been made in respect to the St. Lawrence seaway project. I say I have listened with interest, but at the same time I have felt rather disappointed because when I first heard that the seaway project would be introduced at this session I had the feeling that we would be treated to some very vigorous debates. Realizing the importance of this legislation, involving as it does the expenditure of possibly hundreds of millions of dollars on the part of the people of Canada, I have been amazed at the temper of the debate that has been going on since the minister so ably introduced the subject. I have found the debate to be dull, lifeless and uninspiring. Having regard to the type of debate that rages -in the congress of the United States each time this subject is introduced, I cannot help but feel that the people of Canada will suffer something of a let-down if this legislation is permitted to go through without a full scale and much more vigorous debate taking place.
It is not intelligent for anybody to say there are no arguments which can be offered against the St. Lawrence seaway project. In my short lifetime I have heard any number of arguments which seemed to me intelligent and reasonable, yet I have heard few of them expressed during this debate. I have heard the estimated cost of the seaway placed at something over $800 million. I thought there might be some debate on the cost alone because I feel that these estimated figures must be at least a year old, and since the time they were drawn up costs have increased with respect to labour, materials and many other factors that will enter into the construction of this series of canals and the hydroelectric development which will go to make up the project.
It is estimated that the project may take something like five years to complete. Many

.	St. Lawrence Waterway
competent engineers say it will take closer to ten years, and perhaps longer than that. If the cost in 1950 was but a little more than $800 million, having regard to the fact that the construction of the seaway will go on for years and that it will be necessary as time goes on to dredge harbours, increase port facilities and build defence installations, I think it is safe for me to say-and I think I can hardly be questioned for so stating- that the cost of the St. Lawrence seaway project will be closer to $1,500 million than $800 million. This alone should provide some reason for the people of Canada to question the seaway project.
There is also the question of the practicability of the navigation aspect of the plan. There are those who say that inasmuch as the seaway will be open for navigation only a little more than six months in a year the tremendous cost is not warranted. This draws me into another particular phase of the opposition and arguments which I say should be debated on the floor of the house. What effect is the seaway going to have on the railways? I have heard it said that they have no serious objection to the seaway. If there has been an official expression of opinion on behalf of the two major railways of Canada, I wonder if the opinion was not voiced with tongue in cheek, as it were. The railroads in the United States of America estimate that the loss in revenue to their lines would run anywhere from $100 million to $250 million per annum. Surely the railroads of Canada must be going to suffer some loss. Having regard to the fact that they will most likely have to keep their usual complement of personnel on the payroll and their usual amount of machinery in repair and operation during twelve months of the year, how much loss are they going to suffer during the six months the canal is being utilized for navigation?
We have heard arguments put forward on one side to the effect that the project will offer magnificent defence possibilities. Nevertheless many of its opponents in the United States point out, and I am sure with some reason and logic, that an enemy having access to the polar route could and definitely would plant one bomb that could render the seaway useless perhaps indefinitely. Another thing that might be said is that it is going to have a serious effect on our Atlantic ports. We have heard some measure of opposition from certain maritime members, particularly the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who have pointed out that the seaway may have a serious effect on our industries. Some maritime members have said that it
may seriously affect our Atlantic ports. Perhaps it may, but to my knowledge these arguments have not been properly debated in the house. I repeat that the expenditure may run into $1,500 million on the part of the people of Canada, the people of British Columbia, Newfoundland, Alberta, New Brunswick as well as the taxpayers of Quebec and Ontario, and I say more serious consideration should be given to the whole question. We have heard the suggestion that the interests who were opposing the project in the United States had no right to oppose it, that they were representative of the vested interests. Well, perhaps some of them are. No one would oppose a project such as this unless he had reason for so doing. But the fact that they have been able to stimulate such opposition in the United States congress perhaps indicates that there are many logical and intelligent arguments against the seaway.
Surely it is significant that organizations financed to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars have been formed and have devoted much time and interest, through publicity and debates in congress, to opposing United States co-operation in the building of the seaway. These interests are not only the railways, which might be described as vested interests but there are also almost all the ports along the Atlantic seaboard and the gulf coast in the United States. Hundreds of chambers of commerce throughout the United States have gone on record as opposing the seaways.
I have had very little indication from members of the house that there is any great opposition in Canada. Perhaps that is all for the best. Perhaps there is not any real opposition in Canada, but from reading editorials in various newspapers in the last two years I would say there is some opposition.
I repeat that the whole matter should be debated more vigorously before the bill is passed. I have no thought in mind of retarding the passage of the bill; I have no thought in mind of keeping members of the House of Commons away from their Christmas holidays. But I do repeat I am disappointed; and I am sure many taxpayers of Canada will be disappointed if they read reports to the effect that the bill setting up the authority for the St. Lawrence seaway went through the House of Commons with a yawn and a stretch.
Strange as it may seem, I am not opposed to the seaway. Like most of the maritime members I could not in conscience oppose any measure which I feel may add to the development of the country, although it may add principally to the development of that

section of the country which has already outpaced all other sections in its development. I still feel, however, that the matter should be debated at greater length.
I was proud to be a member of the House of Commons during the past week or so when I heard members from all parts of the country speak in the debate on the address in reply, and also on this particular question when it was in the resolution stage, and urge that if the government was prepared to invest such a huge expenditure in the development of the St. Lawrence seaway project it should at the same time express some interest in the suggestion that the authority for the St. Lawrence project be expanded to take into consideration projects in the maritime provinces and in western Canada. It was significant that members such as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford), indeed members representing all parties in the house, should take time to point out to the government its responsibility in respect of projects which should be surveyed and investigated, but which lie beyond the eastern borders of Quebec and the western borders of Ontario.
During the course of speeches he made in the last year, my good friend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) referred time and again to the necessity for providing increased power facilities in Quebec and Ontario. In a speech delivered over the C.B.C. on November 21, 1950, he said:
As a result of the rapid postwar expansion of industry in Canada, together with the constantly rising consumption of domestic power, the province of Ontario has been for the past few years subject to an acute shortage of power to meet demands. This is further accentuated by the present increasing activity in defence production.
And again:
In so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, with the increased output at Beauharnois to be available in the near future the power situation in the large industrial area adjacent to Montreal will be satisfactory but for a few years.
The minister repeated these words when he spoke before the Montreal board of trade. He repeated them again when he spoke before the Canadian Club of Ottawa. I would ask him now: Does he think it unfair that those of us from the maritime provinces and from the western provinces-and particularly in respect of power in the maritimes- should ask that some interest be taken in the power projects which have been proposed intelligently by provinces, by groups and by individuals from the maritime provinces? I was sad to hear reference in this debate to the Chignecto canal. It is all very well to say that the Chignecto canal is a dead horse, and that we should not continue to flog it. Hut as I put on record in the house before,
St. Lawrence Waterway and as I shall continue to do so long as I am a member, the Chignecto canal stands before the eyes of the people of the maritime provinces as a grim reminder of a broken promise made-verbally, but nevertheless made-at the time of confederation. It is said that time is a great healer. Time will never heal that sore on the hearts of our people. It is true that there have been some grave expressions of opinion on the part of governments down through the years when they set up commissions designed to determine the feasibility of the Chignecto canal. The more recent commission, without examining any witnesses, without conducting any survey, merely by looking at a number of references given by some of the provinces and perusing a brief which was put before them by the Chignecto canal committee, endeavoured to effectively close the door on this project which stands so prominently in the minds of the people of our provinces. Perhaps the Turgeon commission has assisted time in dealing with the Chignecto canal, but perhaps time will assist the people of Canada, and more particularly the people from my part of the country, in determining the value of the conclusions of the Turgeon commission in respect to Chignecto.
That is not the only project that has been put forward by the people of the maritimes. There are proposals concerning the development of power in the Saint John river, and the development of the Quoddy scheme. Recently the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) and I were in Boston. While there we consulted a number of New England industrialists and discussed the feasibility of Quoddy from various angles. I was happy to note that the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) made a reference the other day to Mr. Sydney Grossman, one of New England's industrialists. Mr. Grossman said that if the governments could be persuaded to go ahead and complete the Quoddy survey, and if the survey revealed that Quoddy was feasible but the government of his country did not see fit to go ahead with the project, then he could lay his hands on at least $10 million to start the project as a private enterprise. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that is significant.
When the hon. member for Charlotte and I were in Boston we heard expressions of enthusiasm from all sides, not only from laymen but from competent engineers. The last time I spoke in this house I made a reference to a sonic survey that was being conducted in the Passamaquoddy and Cobs-cook bays by the United States board of engineers. * In Boston I talked with one of

St. Lawrence Waterway those engineers and he made this statement, and repeated it later over the radio while we were being interviewed on a program sponsored by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He said that as a result of these sonic surveys the United States corps of engineers hoped that the estimated cost of the completion of the Quoddy survey would be cut by at least $1 million. Here we have been trying to get some expression of interest from the government of our country in the completion of this survey. On the other side of the border, just as there is a bill in this house asking for endorsement of a Canadian scheme for the St. Lawrence, there has been a resolution before the congress of the United States since August 25 asking for the full amount of money necessary to complete this Quoddy survey.
As I said before, it is an interesting parallel-in one sense of the word it is-that we are asking for authority to go ahead and spend over a billion dollars on the St. Lawrence, while for the Quoddy we are only asking that something like $2,900,000 be spent. Although I intend to support this bill, I find it difficult to go home to my people and say that I helped to vote millions of dollars for the St. Lawrence but I could not get one cent for the completion of the survey of the Passamaquoddy power project. The minister must recognize it as significant that none of the maritime members have expressed themselves as being unalterably opposed to the St. Lawrence project. Surely this must be an indication to him that we are not maritime righters obstructing the development of other parts of Canada and crying for the development of our own area alone. Surely this must be proof to the government that we in the maritimes are very pleased to see the other parts of the country developed. All we are seeking is an indication of interest in the development of our provinces.
I have discussed the Quoddy with some engineers in the different departments. Many of them say, "Well, you cannot establish to us that cheap power can be produced through the Quoddy project." Yet I know a very competent army engineer in the United States who feels reasonably certain that power can be produced at Quoddy at the rate of about 3 mills per killowatt hour.


An hon. Member:: Time!


Daniel Aloysius Riley: One hon. member has indicated that I have spoken long enough.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Perhaps my words may encourage other hon. members to speak. Perhaps w6 may yet have a full scale debate on the St. Lawrence seaway project. I hope the hon.


member who suggested that my time had expired will get to his feet and make an intelligent contribution to the debate. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I may yet have another opportunity to speak. If I do, I hope it is only after there has been a full scale discussion of this all-important project.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just taken his seat has given us a most impressive talk. I hope I shall be able to be in the House of Commons long enough to see the maritimes have something of what is their right.
As to this St. Lawrence seaway project, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have endeavoured to give the matter most careful and realistic study and consideration. In 1941 I had the honour and the responsibility of leading the Social Credit movement in this house. In 1941 there was an imminent likelihood that the project would be proceeded with after the signatures were put to the agreement between the United States and Canada. At that time I studied intensively many works on both sides of the proposition. A number of those I have preserved as being what I thought to be the most factual, objective, well-balanced and reasoned presentations on the subject. I have before me now several of what I thought were the best. I have, for instance, "The St. Lawrence Seaway Project" by B. D. Tallamy and T. M. Sedweek of the Niagara frontier planning board, Buffalo, New York, published in 1940. I should like to read from paragraph 2 of the introduction to the rather extended document:
In the preparation of this survey, the basic materials used were the reports of a joint board of engineers (appointed by the Canadian and United States governments), an interdepartmental report of the United States government, other governmental documents, and the report published by the Brookings Institution, an impartial research foundation of Washington, D.C. Original analyses as to the costs and as to the economic and political effects of the proposed seaway were then made from this basic material. Data from such sources were believed to be the most authentic information on the subject.
I gave this whole document careful and earnest study. I have another entitled "Some Observations on Canadian, Public Finances, with Special Reference to the St. Lawrence Deep Waterways Project" by George C. McDonald, chartered accountant, December 9, 1940. From this document I should like to read the first three paragraphs:
In March last when new projects regarding the St. Lawrence deep waterways were being discussed, I was asked by friends if I would make a report on the economic features involved in the light of present-day circumstances. I gave the request careful consideration, and because I am deeply interested in certain matters of public import which

are reflected in greater or less degree in the waterway project, and in the various proposals as to its future development, I decided that I should be glad to express my views on some aspects of the problem.
My active interest in the subject had first been aroused as a member of the council of the Montreal board of trade when the report on the St. Lawrence waterways project was made to that body by Messrs. Holgate and Jamieson in 1929.
In 1931, in connection with the activities of the Canadian chamber of commerce, I gave further study to the matter.
That document starts in a rather interesting and impressive way. I read it through with much interest and not a little conviction. I have also "The St. Lawrence Waterway, A Study of the Economic Aspects", by John L. McDougall, Kingston, Ontario, September 3, 1941. I should like to read from that document the first sentence on page 3:
The writer of this report is an economist who received his post-graduate training at Toronto, London and Harvard universities, and in business, and who is now on the staff in commerce at Queen's university.
That sounds attractive to those who are impressed by academic degrees. Then may I read a letter which appears at the beginning of the document:
Canadian Electrical Association Incorporated
Montreal, P.Q., July 21, 1941
J. L. McDougall, Esq.,
Department of Business Administration,
Queen s University,
Kingston, Ontario.
Dear Mr. McDougall:
This letter will serve as formal authority for you to make a study, in our behalf, of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project.
Of especial interest, at this time, is the question as to whether or not Canada can afford to devote the necessary manpower and materials to the building of the navigation and power canal and ancillary works. We understand that your study will be largely concerned with endeavouring to answer this question from the point of view of the welfare of Canada, having regard to the vital need for efficient prosecution of the war.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) H. E. Blachford,
Technical Assistant
That sort of introduction always commends itself to me. I have had quite a lot of training in university matters, and I have a high regard for well-trained people. All three of these reports were not favourable to proceeding with the waterway development at that time, and in some cases they were definitely antagonistic to the whole project.
I have an editorial which, with the consent of the house, I will not take the time to read but which I will have put on the record. It is from the Montreal Daily Star of August 12, 1941. It is the leading editorial and is entitled "No Seaway Now". Have I the permission of the house to put it on the record?
St. Lawrence Waterway It discusses the whole matter objectively. I am told that the editor of the Montreal Star at that time was a man of profound sincerity and sense of responsibility. I am informed that, before attempting to write so portentous an editorial as this, which opposes proceeding with the St. Lawrence waterway project, he gathered around him the best men he could find in Canada from a wide variety of fields of activity. In order to save the time of the house, if I may have permission, I think I will put on the record a list of nineteen of the men whom he called around him, with their qualifications and their positions. These were all men who had been, selected especially to study the project. May I have the consent of the house to put this document on the record?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I think the policy of this house has usually been to accept tables for the record without reading them. I think it would be a mistake to depart from that policy and put on the rec ird reading matter that is not in the form of tables. I know that in the United States congress they put whole books on the record, and the first thing that will happen here, if we are not careful, is that we will be doing the same thing. If the names are not very long I suggest to the hon. member that he read them.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, I am quite willing to do that, but it will take ten minutes of the time of the house. I think it is of sufficient importance in the circumstances to justify putting it on the record. Suppose I leave this and put it on after I finish the rest of my remarks; then people will be able to find it. In case there is no time we shall leave it until probably the committee stage of the bill or until some other time. It may be that hon. members will not find it of sufficient value to take up our time with it; but certainly there are some impressive names and titles among the names listed in this group.
At that time I endeavoured to form a sound opinion, and I felt, after all the studying I was able to do, that probably the St. Lawrence seaway project was one for some remote future. At least I was not in favour of proceeding with it under the circumstances which then obtained in Canada.
I have endeavoured to keep more or less in touch with the whole project and the development of thought in respect of it. Everything that has come to my hand I have filed away and read as soon as I could find the time and the energy so to do.
An example of the documents I have considered is one called "The Great Lakes-St.

St. Lawrence Waterway Lawrence Seaway", which I am sure all hon. members have had, by J. G. McLean, vice president, apparently, of the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and enginemen, and national legislative representative in Canada. His article appears in the July, 1951 issue of The Brotherhood of Locomotive and Engine-men's magazine. I am not able to find exactly what is the standing of this gentleman, but anyway the document is here. I think it is worthy of respect. It seems to be written objectively, and the general feeling one gets is that the person knows a great deal of what he is talking about. I should like to read short excerpts from this document. On page 5 he discusses the No. 1 argument-that going forward with the project would provide for lower freight rates. He says: "Actually there is no assurance that it would." No. 2 is found on page 8. He says:
The second argument previously mentioned, i.e., the project would provide for additional sources of hydroelectric power, is the most poignant argument in favour of the proposed seaway.
Therefore he gives considerable respect to argument No. 2. On the same page the third argument is discussed. It reads:
The third argument concerning the encouragement of American capital investments is the most contentious of all.
By the way, these are not all the arguments the minister gave. The fourth argument, also found on the same page, is this:
The last argument, which supports the seaway development which suggests that the plan will strengthen the national defence, lacks any serious merit.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members, including the ministers, will not blame a person if, after reading such documents as this and every other kind that he can get his hands on, he finds many questions still unanswered. This was the reason I wanted to ask a number of questions. I will be given the opportunity of asking those questions when the bill is in committee stage, but I thought this array of evidence ought to remove from everybody's mind the thought that I was endeavouring to obstruct the other night when I desired to hold up the project long enough to ask some questions that were in my own mind.
As I said when I spoke first on the project, Social Crediters will favour it because I believe we all have a sort of feeling it is the right thing to do; that it is good for the country, and we are pleased also that Canada is going ahead with it regardless of United States assistance. That commends itself to us. I said all this, of course, when I first talked on the subject. At the same time I wanted to keep myself open-minded, ready for information on either side of the situation, in case we might have made a conclusion rather too hastily.

I will say that, with respect to all these documents' to which I have referred, the unanimous testimony of the witnesses was definitely against the immediate construction of the St. Lawrence seaway project in 1940. The one I read recently goes down to 1951.
I feel that the other night the minister made a magnificent speech. I do not know that I have ever heard a better one, better documented, better supported, better developed in every way and more beautifully expressed.
The question will be raised then: why are you not impressed by the statements from boards and other great authorities from whom the minister quoted? Well, I am going to tell you frankly, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to tell hon. members and the government why. Our age is an age of dangerous propaganda. The means of influencing public opinion today are so much more potent than anything heretofore known in the history of the world that we fail to appreciate what propaganda -can do. And the means of influencing public opinion are so completely available to men of wealth and influence and so unavailable to people without wealth and without influence that every man and woman in the nation and in this House of Commons has to exercise the greatest reservation before he takes for granted an idea which is disseminated, propagated, and stimulated by high-pressure propaganda. I am going to mention just two illustrations, and I hope I shall not be out of order in so doing, just to show how careful a person has to be.
Hon. members will recall the tremendous outburst of propaganda which filled our newspapers from coast to coast, and cluttered up our radios in every direction, all advocating the Sirois report in 1941. The actual facts were that the Sirois report was one of the most pernicious documents ever advocated by a body of men in the history of the Dominion of Canada. I am not going into detail on that matter but I shall challenge anybody to disprove what I say; yet Canadians were almost stampeded in respect to the stand on the Sirois report. You found great headlines, often in colours, in some of the newspapers. "The people of Canada demand adoption of the Sirois report," but not one per cent of them knew what it stood for. That was the kind of trash that was poured out all over the pages of our newspapers.
We have seen the same thing in respect to this St. Lawrence seaway project. There has been well-paid, carefully calculated and subtly executed propaganda to prepare the people for it. Probably nothing like that was meant, but every person who tries to

keep his feet on the ground and his head down out of the clouds has every reason to be reserved.
Here is another thing. Hon. members recall the Bretton Woods agreement. From the newspaper and radio propaganda that was carried on in support of the Bretton Woods agreement you would have thought it provided an entrance into kingdom come, that the minute we accepted Bretton Woods the whole lot of us would go right into paradise. All parties except the Social Crediters allowed themselves to be stampeded on Bretton Woods. When the thing was passed many members of the house thought, "well, we have done it; now our troubles are over." As a matter of fact that was the most dangerous thing Canada ever accepted in all her history, and was one of the major causes of the troubles under which the world is now struggling. But you could not even get a hearing when you attempted to reason about Bretton Woods. Hon. members in this house can remember that. So I take with reservation what almost anybody says. We are in an age when confusion is being sown deliberately by certain people.
There is another reason I have endeavoured to be cautious, as I am sure all people in Canada would expect me to be, or demand that I be, being in the opposition. The secret knowledge which may or may not have something to do with the desirability or undesirability of the construction of this project is not known to the people of Canada or to the members of parliament. There are no means whereby we can acquire that knowledge, no matter how diligent we may be in search of it.
The next difficulty is that we cannot tell whom to trust. I do not propose to give any illustrations of the way in which some of the most eminent men have allowed themselves to be tools in the hands of powerful interests in order that statements might be made which would advance the cause of those interests. I must say that I was under considerable anxiety and uncertainty when I was asking questions the other night. I was anxious, as the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) advises us to be, that there be adequate discussion of this matter before we put our signatures to so important a contract as one involving an agreement to build the St. Lawrence seaway.
Since I spoke last in this house I have had the opportunity of obtaining a copy of a speech delivered by General McNaughton. He is a man whom I trust to the highest degree. I am not unmindful of the fact that he is a great scientist, that he was a great general in the last war, that he is a man of
St. Lawrence Waterway courage and integrity. I am not unmindful of the fact that he occupies the important position of chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission and also chairman of the Canadian section of (the permanent joint board on defence. I think we must accept the word of such a man.
It would be contrary to all the principles of becoming deportment for him to let me know the inner facts upon which he based his conclusions. That is one of the unfortunate elements we must allow for. If he were to let me know, there would be no reason why he should not let others know. While I believe I could be completely trusted, I am afraid there are one or two that perhaps could not be. That means that I find myself without access to the fundamental facts upon which this man would base a statement similar to the one which he made in Toronto on December 6. May I read from the speech which that great man made; and I think we will all agree that we can call him a great man. Referring to the St. Lawrence seaway, he said:
-it has now become most urgent that an early start be made on construction.
This need for early action applies not only to the works contemplated on both sides in the international section of the river for power for which there have long been unsatisfied markets in each country for their respective shares; the need applies also for early action on the construction of the navigation facilities which recent estimates show will be used, well up to capacity, as soon as they are made available and because their absence has become a serious disadvantage to the trade and commerce of Canada.
Further on he used these words:
The representations which have been made to the congress of the United States favour the combined project for navigation and power as conferring the most far-reaching benefits to the peacetime economy of the two countries; they make clear also that the early completion of the works for navigation and power is a vital matter in relation to the defence of the North American continent in this period of deep anxiety and great concern.
In addition to the favourable report and recommendation given by the international joint commission, the project for the combined development of the St. Lawrence for navigation and power has been repeatedly before a succession of national advisory committees and the like both in Canada and the United States. In every case the project has been endorsed.
It has also received the attention of a series of joint engineering boards, where the design of the works required has been developed in great detail and to the point that there is no longer any significant question outstanding between the technical representatives of the two countries.
And further down:
The St. Lawrence project for navigation and power neither in its physical dimensions nor in its financial implications is that colossal, stupendous undertaking that some people have set out to picture, but I would agree that these superlatives will properly apply to the useful effects on our

St. Lawrence Waterway
economy and defence arrangements which will come from its construction, more particularly at this rime.
And the final quotation from that speech is is follows:
The board, after searching analysis, stated the project would increase military potential out of all proportion to expenditure in manpower and critical materials, much of which would be required to be used in any event as additional power had to be provided.
Having in mind these considerations and reaffirming its previous recommendations for the construction of the St. Lawrence project for navigation and power the board recommended:
"That the two governments take immediate action to implement the 1941 St. Lawrence agreement as a vital measure for their common defence."
Thus there is now on the public record the advice of the two bodies which have been created by Canada and the United States jointly to consider matters of mutual interest and concern along our boundary both for peace and for defence-the international joint commission, established under the waterways treaty of 1909 and the Canada-United States permanent joint board on defence, set up by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister King at Ogdensburg in August, 1940, have both recommended-repeatedly-that the St. Lawrence project for navigation and power should be built and promptly.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that such a pronouncement coming from this man at this time leaves me with no possible alternative but to support the measure without qualification.
What fundamental factors of the seaway situation could have so changed in either their nature or their incidence as to render out of date the conclusions of only ten years ago, to which I referred in the earlier part of my remarks, of those most respectable authorities?	The answer is:	"Scientific
developments." Things have happened in the world in many different ways since 1940 that have rendered what might not have been an urgent necessity then a most urgent and probably inevitable necessity in 1951.
I said the other night that the Social Credit movement and Alberta would support the project provided it could be established that it would be of benefit to each of the provinces. I can think of no greater benefit that could be conferred upon any one of the provinces at the present moment than adequate defence. Therefore it appears to me as though we Social Crediters are completely in the clear and completely consistent in all the positions we have taken thus far. Defence is the answer to the questions as to what benefit will be given to each province.
What of the maritimes? I said some strong things the other day about the inequities that have been endured for many years by the maritimes, and I meant everything
[Mr. Blackmore.l
I said. I am completely out of patience with people who persist in neglecting the interests of the maritimes.
There are two things which I believe will give cause for comfort to the maritimes. Looking over the whole field I would say the first one is that apparently it will be absolutely necessary in the interests of Canadian well-being and United States defence to develop a great steel mill in the maritime provinces before long. I would say there are two points in the maritime provinces at either, one of which, and particularly at one, the largest and finest steel mill we could build would appear to be entirely in order. If such construction were undertaken I believe the maritimes would benefit greatly by the building of such a mill, and would probably benefit more than they will suffer through any economic results of the construction of the great St. Lawrence waterway.
There is another point, and I am sorry to say there will be no responsive ears among the maritime people when I say this. By employing the principles of Social Credit it is possible to reorganize the economy of Canada in such a way as to make the maritimes enjoy an era of prosperity the like of which their most ardent lovers have never even dreamed of. The maritimes possess the resources. They can produce goods that can make them rich, happy and prosperous. That has been proved time and time again. Is there any man in this house who will deny that the maritimes possess resources in materials, manpower and morale to produce the things that are necessary to raise that area to a high standard of prosperity? Is there any man who will dare to contradict me? Very well. Then the only problem confronting us is to enable the maritimes to produce those goods and distribute them.
Surely distribution is not an impossibility if we can only outgrow the prejudices that we have grown up with. Therefore I say to the maritimes that in taking the position I am taking now I am not receding in any way from my determination to support maritime rights and improvements. As a matter of fact I am prepared to join any one or all of those who will take the foremost position in an effort to begin right now to change conditions in the maritimes so the people of that region will all be able to be happy.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Why not make a tour of the
maritimes?


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, I have been in the
maritimes.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: We would like to have you
make a tour.


John Horne Blackmore: I would be happy to go
down there. Thank you ever so much. I am happy to be invited as you are inviting me now. I will drop in some time.


Gordon Graydon: You have got yourself a
week-end visitor.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Most interesting.


John Horne Blackmore: May I revert now from a discussion of the problems of the maritimes to the St. Lawrence seaway. Under the circumstances I wish to assure the minister and the government that we shall be with them all the way in building the St. Lawrence seaway as soon as possible.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks regarding the St. Lawrence seaway, I want to point out that for two reasons I do not wish to say anything with respect to the power phase of the project. One is of course that it is probably a very sound idea, and the second is that it is primarily a provincial affair. However, I should like to make a few remarks with respect to the navigation aspect of the St. Lawrence seaway development. I must say to begin with that I do not share the almost unbounded enthusiasm that certain hon. members seem to have for the scheme. We should remember that geographically our country is very large and spread out, that our population is very small, and that we already have a great and costly system of transportation which our economy must carry. The per capita cost for transportation is already very high, and we should be most careful indeed before we add to that load. We cannot but add to the load if we proceed with this very expensive development of the St. Lawrence seaway.
It may be of course that from a navigational point of view the St. Lawrence seaway would be such a stimulus that our economy would strengthen and our population grow to the extent that shortly the per capita load cost for transportation would be reduced. But I have seen no proof that that will be so, and I actually doubt very much if that will be the case. I have considerable doubt about the almost limitless enthusiasm of some hon. members that we can make ourselves rich merely by carrying products from one place to another and carrying other products back again. That type of economic philosophy reminds me somewhat of the gentleman in Georgia who had purchased a small truck, and who had $50 operating capital. With the $50 he bought a mule, and transported the mule across the county, after which he traded it for a cow. He transported the cow to another corner of the county and traded
St. Lawrence Waterway it for two sheep. He took the sheep to another part of the county and traded them for two goats; and he sold the goats to one of his neighbours for $50. His neighbour said, "You have been very busy, but where did it get you? You started out with $50 in the morning and this evening, after expending a great deal of energy, you have ended up with $50." The first gentleman replied, "Yes, I know, but look at all the business I did."
I am afraid that is the attitude some people are taking about this St. Lawrence seaway problem. We are not necessarily going to strengthen our economy by carrying goods from one place to another. What we should attempt to do is create sources of supply near the markets and create markets near the sources of supply. Let us so far as possible cut out all this business of having to carry goods from one end of the country to the other.
But, as I say, even if it can be proven that from the standpoint of transportation the St. Lawrence seaway is economically sound, there are many other side effects we should guard against. I cannot see where this is by any means an unadulterated benefit, an unmixed blessing. There are side effects which, if precautions are not taken, will have a very detrimental result upon the economy of certain parts of this country. An example of what I mean would be the development of our vast iron ore supplies in the Labrador area. Precautions should be taken to see that the economy of Canada is not reduced to that of a nation of primary producers and kept indefinitely on that basis, due to the fact that the iron and steel industry of the United States has the momentum of an earlier start and, for a time, can possibly carry on more cheaply than we can in Canada. We should see to it that, if necessary, an embargo is placed upon the export of iron ore needed for the production of goods we require in Canada, both for domestic use and for purposes of national defence. I can see no future for us, as Canadian people, in mining ore in Labrador and shipping it to the United States for smelting and rolling into sheets, then exporting it back to Ontario perhaps to be manufactured into automobiles, refrigerators and all that sort of thing, and finally to have it sold to the people of Labrador and the maritime provinces in a finished state. I see very little future in that.
We should make every attempt to develop our industries for ourselves. In that connection I am happy indeed to observe the broad-minded and statesmanlike attitude taken by certain members from the central provinces. But equally I deplore certain

St. Lawrence Waterway examples of provincial viewpoints, as they have been expressed in the debate. I resent the suggestion that if everything is well with the St. Lawrence valley, everything will be well with this great country of ours from coast to coast. That does not necessarily follow at all. That sort of narrow, provincial viewpoint is expressed by those people who at this late date, after almost a century, would revert to referring to this great country of ours as Canada. They would describe as Canada this dominion which stretches from sea to sea, "from the river unto the ends of the earth." They would describe it as it was originally described when it was two colonies in the St. Lawrence valley known as the Canadas. After all, in the beginning we were a group of colonies. We entered confederation so that we would no longer be separate and small colonies but rather we would be a great dominion, a great nation, a great domain from sea to sea. I am sure one of the reasons the fathers of confederation agreed to giving the name Canada to this new nation was that that name should be preceded by the word "dominion". The idea was that the Dominion of Canada should spread from coast to coast, from sea to sea and, to use the biblical reference, "from the river unto the ends of the earth".
If Canada is to become the great nation which is and should be its heritage, then it should be the concern of the government to try to look at our problems in a national way and consider all areas of the country. I do not think that as a nation we can prosper if there are depressed areas, if there are areas where there is not sufficient opportunity even to absorb the natural increase in population. I am shocked by the report in the last census which shows that the population of Saskatchewan has actually decreased in the last ten years. In this great country there should be all kinds of opportunities, not only for those who are bom here but also for those who immigrate to this country from the crowded areas in other countries.
The same is true of the maritime provinces. Ever since confederation the maritimes have been unable to absorb their natural increase in population. In that part of Canada there is not the opportunity there should be. Until we look upon our problems as those of a great area from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as problems that must be tackled for the benefit of all of us, I do not think we can hope to progress.
Therefore I support this scheme for the development of the St. Lawrence seaway only if it is a part of a greater scheme, only if it is one little bit in a large and beautiful mosaic of development which will make this country of ours the great nation it has the


right to be. So I suggest that we embark as one great nation upon a purposeful, energetic and broad-minded program for the development of the whole of this great country from sea to sea, and "from the river unto the ends of the earth".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Carroll in the chair.
On section 1'-Short title.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I know hon. members will want me to deal with some of the questions raised the other evening. Before doing so, however, I think I should first of all express to hon. members my gratitude for the interest they have shown in the bill, and particularly for the patience they have shown during the progress of the debate. I am delighted-and I say this in all sincerity-with the wholehearted support that has been given to these projects, both in the resolution stage and in the present stage of the seaway bill. I say that because, while in some of the remarks I made the other evening I might have been provocative, I certainly had no intention of being so. I can only feel that the members who have spoken with some hesitation about some of the aspects in so far as their regions are concerned would not have spoken as they did unless these projects were to the general advantage of Canada.


Mr. Pouliot:: We all like you as you are.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that any of the remarks I shall have to make now will be taken in the light of this statement. I shall deal now with the charges and complaints that have been made. First of all by the maritime members:	I refer now to the
hon. member for Royal, the hon. member for Cumberland and the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings, who have said, during the debate on the resolution, that the maritime provinces were consistently forgotten by the government when great projects were being considered. Last evening and during the course of this afternoon the hon. member for Lethbridge stated that this and other governments had been scandalous in their treatment of the maritime provinces, in other words that the maritime provinces had been scandalously forgotten.
1 want to pause here to thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for the attitude which he adopted just a moment ago. He put on the record a number of statements by General McNaughton and said that so far as he was concerned these statements convinced him, because if General McNaughton felt this great scheme was in the interests of national defence and in the interests of security that was enough to convince him,

and the project had his wholehearted support. I thank the hon. member for his statement.
I do not intend, and I hope hon. members will not take it as such, to get into a debate with members from the maritime provinces concerning what has been done or what has not been done. But I think I should put on the record at least what my own department has done in two of the maritime provinces. I am referring to projects that are now in the making, and partly in construction, which amount to over $54 million. There are other projects with which my department is intimately connected or associated which total close to $40 million. Surely a member of the house cannot say his section of the country is being neglected when that amount is being spent.


Mr. Brooks:: To what does the minister refer in making this comparison?


Lionel Chevrier: I am going to give the details. Again I say that I do not want to get into an argument, but I think in fairness to all members of the house the whole story should be told. The hon. member for Cumberland categorically stated that shipbuilding in the maritime provinces had been neglected by the federal government. In fact he went so far as to say that what had been given amounted to crumbs. We are spending approximately $38 million right now in connection with shipbuilding in maritime yards. But let me get back to what is being done in my own department. The causeway to bridge the strait of Canso is a measure of some importance, and it is going to cost $21 million. The ferry between Yarmouth and Bar Harbour in the state of Maine is a project which will cost $5 million. The terminals at North Sydney are costing $3 million; the ferry between Port aux Basques and North Sydney, $7 million. There are airport developments at Fredericton and Sydney, in the constituency of the hon. member who made a speech a moment ago, totalling $8 million. The national harbours board has projects in the two provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at Halifax and Saint John costing $10 million. This totals $54 million, and it is to be spent by the Department of Transport alone.
Then there is the naval program in the yards at Halifax, Saint John and Pictou for the construction of escort vessels, minesweepers and gate vessels, amounting to $29 million. There is the conversion work in other yards such as Pictou, Charlottetown, Liverpool, Lunenburg and Halifax, amounting to $8,500,-
000.	All this totals about $94 million. Surely it cannot be said that no consideration whatever is being given to the maritime provinces.
St. Lawrence Waterway I have not dealt with Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland. I have dealt with two provinces because the complaints seemed to come mostly from those two provinces.
Before I deal with the two points made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, I want to say that I believe we are going off on a tangent on this project. For almost the entire time we have been discussing iron ore. This is not a project to develop iron ore. It is a project to develop power in the international rapids section of the river and, second, to build a canal 27 feet deep from the port of Montreal to lake Erie. Surely that is an all-Canadian project and a project that will develop wealth in Canada. It is the continuation of a program developed by Canada many years ago when it was first decided to build the Welland canal. The moment you develop the power by building dams in the international rapids section of the river, you drown out the 14-foot canals that are in that area. This immediately brings up the problem of constructing new canals. We could continue to build 14-foot draught canals and provide an expenditure for that if we so desired.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister suggested that one of the chief reasons for the development of the canal was the ore coming from Labrador.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, and I am not getting away from the question of the ore. I hope to be able to deal fully with it. What I am dealing with now is that we should have an all-Canadian project with reference to the ore, and my reply is that the main objective of the two bills which will be before the house is not the development of ore or the shipping of ore, but the development of power and the building of the seaway. What greater Canadian policy could there be than this seaway measure which establishes an authority to build and maintain the canal? True, if we go on with the 1941 development the authority will be able to build it jointly with the United States. But if the United States does not go ahead it is our purpose to build it on Canadian territory. What greater Canadian policy could there be than that? In dealing with the two questions raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra the other evening, I wanted to preface my remarks by that statement.
The hon. member said he has some difficulty or fears and anxieties-I do not blame him because those are questions which should be explained to the satisfaction of the house, if they can about the fact that the greater part of this ore will be moved in United States bottoms. The first point is that by

St. Lawrence Waterway treaty the United States has a right of navigation in the St. Lawrence river from the head of the lakes down to the sea, which was accorded many years ago. They have that right. In the next place, today a United States ship may pick up goods at our ports and take them to a United States port or to a foreign port. Conversely, a Canadian ship can go into a United States port, pick up United States goods and move them into a Canadian port. Those are provisions that are the law, and they cannot be changed unless we amend the law.
But there is what is known as cabotage. A United States ship cannot pick up a load of grain in a Canadian port and deliver it to a Canadian port. On that basis a United States ship might well pick up ore at Seven Islands, but it would have difficulty in bringing back grain. That is why I attempted to say, or rather I said the other evening, that we were developing new specialized carriers on the great lakes for the purpose of moving ore on the upbound movement and taking grain on the downbound movement, and that I was hopeful it would be possible-in fact, I feel quite satisfied that it will be the case-that Canadian ships will be used for this purpose.
My hon. friend said: "The minister is too sanguine. If he thinks these iron ore people in Labrador and northern Quebec are going to use Canadian ships, he is mistaken." I might conceivably be mistaken. But what has happened at Steep Rock? There the ore is moved in Canadian bottoms. What has happened at Arvida? The aluminum company, through its Saguenay terminals, move all of their bauxite from South America-from British Guiana, I believe it is

up to that district in Canadian bottoms. What has happened with reference to the development of pulp and paper in the lower St. Lawrence? All that is moved in Canadian bottoms. While I cannot say what the iron ore people are going to do in six, eight or ten years when this project is completed, I know there are being built right now in the great lakes area, for the purpose of this trade, the following ships: the John O. McKellar, a bulk freighter which will probably be from 13,000 to 15,000 tons; the Sir James Dunn, a bulk freighter which was launched the other day; one C.S.L. freighter which has not yet received a name; the James Norris, another 14,000-tonner; the Gordon C. Leitch, a 14,000-tonner; one Algoma freighter, a 14,000-.tonner. Again, not so long ago the Scott Misener was launched, a bulk freighter with a gross registered tonnage of 13,081 tons.


Mr. Green:: How many ships will be required altogether?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not able to say, but a substantial number of ships will be in this trade. These people who are Canadian operators would not be building these ships if they did not think they could get the trade. My hon. friend says: What assurance have we that they are going to get it? I cannot give the assurance and I do not think anyone else can give it. All we can do is to look at history and say here is what happened in other cases. As to these ships that are now being built, I can come to no other conclusion but that the iron ore people will use Canadian bottoms in which to move the iron ore.
My hon. friend made another important point with which I should like to deal, and it concerns iron ore. Perhaps we could call it 6.15, Mr. Chairman.
At 6.15 p.m. the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, when the committee adjourned at 6.15 I was just beginning to deal with the subject of iron ore and the argument made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and some other hon. members, that we should look twice before exporting our iron ore. That statement and others that are allied to it deserve some consideration, and I propose to deal with it as best I can at this time. First of all I should like to say that the government yields to no one in its concern that Canadian resources should be developed to their maximum, and that Canadians should get the greatest possible benefits in employment and other forms out of these developments of our natural resources.
Our concern is as active in the case of the Quebec-Labrador ore deposits as in the case of any other resource. We certainly do hope to develop markets for iron and steel. Our hopes do not stop there, either. We will do all we can to develop markets for Canadian products made out of that iron and steel. At the same time, however, it is clear that in Quebec and Labrador we have iron ore in such quantities as to be surplus to any such domestic requirements for many generations to come. We do have markets that can be opened up for that ore. Steel mills that are now in existence are looking for new ore supplies, not hypothetical mills that are to be built at some vague time in the future.
Without relaxing our efforts to create a larger steel industry in Canada, based on

export markets, we wish at the same time to open up other markets that I have just mentioned for our iron ore.
I think the case of the Quebec-Labrador deposits can be compared with that of the Wabana iron ore from Bell island of Newfoundland. The Bell island deposits, as the committee knows, are made up of one of the largest deposits of hematite known in the world. Hematite is an ore with a comparatively high iron content. The Bell island mines are the main source of ore for the Sydney steel mills. But a large part of the production of Wabana ore is exported, and has been exported for many decades. Large new export demands have initiated an expansion program now under way that will mean a great increase in production. Anyone so irresponsible as to oppose this development would be attacked and with good reason, I am sure, by the very people who are complaining now that the iron ore from the Quebec-Labrador fields should not be exported. Why? Because the potential production of Wabana ore far exceeds any likely requirements of the Sydney steel mills for many generations to come.
Then if one looks again at the deposits at the Steep Rock and Michipicoten mines in Ontario the position is the same. Both ores are used to some extent in Canadian blast furnaces, but large quantities of lower grade ore are imported to mix with them in the furnace charge, while a large volume of the Canadian ores is shipped to the United States. Why? Because it is more economical to "sweeten" the low-grade with the high-grade in the furnace charge, and the high-grade ore is more valuable for this purpose than for direct charge to the furnaces in Canada.
Quebec-Labrador ores are high-grade too. However great the volume of steel production that may be achieved in Canada, it will always be to our advantage to exchange a quantity of high-grade ore for lower grade imports.
I think the same can be said of wheat. We have large quantities of wheat in this country, and we export large quantities; but we also mill large quantities. Other countries have flour mills, too, however. We are able to export our flour in competition with other countries. While our mills are competitive in cost and do get a large share of the world's milling business, they do not get enough of the world's milling business to keep them going. That is why it is necessary to export wheat. We do all we can to develop our flour markets, but I do not think any hon. member would suggest that we stop at that
St. Lawrence Waterway and refuse to export any of the wheat that is surplus to the requirements of the Canadian flour mills.
The same thing applies to the base metals, copper, nickel, lead, zinc and such other metals. A high proportion of the ores are smelted and the metal refined in Canada. In most cases there is a considerable domestic fabrication of the metal as well, and in some cases we do a sizeable business in the processed product, as for example, copper wire and cable.
I think, in so far as Quebec-Labrador ore is concerned, our objective is the same, but on the face of it the basic factors are not the same. Our success with base metals stems directly from the importance of cheap hydroelectric power in the reduction process. We do not have a comparable advantage in the case of iron and steel. The position does hold some promise, but I would be misleading the house if I were to say without equivocation that we can have the same success with iron and steel that we have had with base metals or for that matter with paper and other products that have been mentioned. But I do say that we will bend every effort to get the maximum advantage for Canada out of our iron ore resources.
It has been said during the course of the debate that little or nothing was being done in order to expand the present steel plants in Canada. I am not suggesting that what I am going to say now has been done by the government, but what I am suggesting is that a tremendous expansion in our steel production has been announced only quite recently. In that respect let me point out that all four major steel producers in Canada have large capital expansion programs that are under way at the moment. I refer first of all to the Dominion Steel and Coal Company at Sydney. It is spending $16 million for extensive modernization which, among other things, will add 100,000 tons to the theoretical steel capacity. This $16 million item is only one phase of a $44 million program involving also the increased output of Wabana ore referred to a moment ago, and $14 million for improvements at the coal mines. The Steel Company of Canada at Hamilton is spending $50 million to provide new blast furnaces and steel furnaces, which will add 450,000 tons to their capacity for smelting pig iron and 650,000 tons of ingot for an increase of 35 per cent in steel capacity. Dominion Foundries and Steel in Hamilton is building new blast furnaces at a cost of $16 million. Algoma Steel at Sault Ste. Marie is spending $40 million to add 360,000 tons to its pig iron capacity,
240,000	tons to its steel capacity and over one

St. Lawrence Waterway million tons to its rolling mill capacity. Manitoba Rolling Mill Company is spending $1 million to add 90,000 tons to its rolling mill capacity. The total new investment directly in steel production amounts to $122 million, aside from Dosco's new investment in coal and ore production. Of this $122 million program it is hoped that about $68 million, or over one-half the program, will be completed this year.
I pause for a moment while I am still on this subject to quote from the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's West who took an opposite view to the view taken by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. At the outset of his remarks the hon. member for St. John's West said he was of the opinion that the people of Newfoundland wanted this development. After paying a tribute to the hon. member for his independence he went on to say, and 1 quote from page 1695 of Hansard of December 7:
At the same time I am sure he must recognize that even in connection with an industry of which he knows so much, the oil industry, the principal interests are from the United States. We must look to the richest country in the world to provide funds for the development and exploitation of our natural resources.
And a little later on:
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has stressed the desirability of the government promoting the smelting of iron ore in this country.
And again:
It would be a great departure from the policy that has been pursued in the past in the development of the great industries of this country if the government should go into industries of that kind.


Howard Charles Green: I did not advocate that.


Lionel Chevrier: I know my hon. friend did not advocate that, but what the hon. member for St. John's West was saying, first, was that the people in Newfoundland are for this development and, next, that it would be a departure from government policy to attempt to go into this development other than in the manner to which I have referred, namely that the steel producers themselves should expand. There is already a tremendous expansion in the offing, a large proportion of which will be completed this year. There is no doubt in the world but that these mills will require a substantial amount of the Quebec-Labrador ore.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Can the minister give us any idea what proportions will be used in Canada and in the United States?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot say that at this
time because it would depend on a number of contingencies. But when the matter comes up at a later date, at another session, it will be possible to give more accurate and detailed information.

I do not want to get into a debate on coal, but I think I should make one short statement. I placed on Hansard certain figures provided by the bureau of statistics, and I have the assurance that they were approved by the coal board. I do not think those figures can be challenged. They point to a position where at least an additional million tons of coal from the maritime provinces could be marketed in the central markets. I do not think there is any doubt about that. In the railways and shipping committee in 1950 Mr. Gordon said that he could have taken
1,200,000	tons of coal. I am not going to analyse the reply made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South because I do not think there would be any purpose in doing so, but I do want to make this statement and I hope that he will not disagree with it.
There is no surplus available after distribution in the maritime provinces of the coal production at this time. As the house knows, there is a substantial government program on foot costing in the neighbourhood of $14 million having to do with the mechanization of coal mining, the objeot being to reduce the price of the coal at the pit head in that area so as to make it more competitive in cost. That is a government program which is now in course of operation. As I say, the result should be to cheapen the cost of coal. When I say that I have reference not only to the maritime consumers who purchase 72 per cent of that coal, but to those in central Canada who will buy it.
The other side of the picture is that if there is to be surplus production because of this mechanization program it would be available for export to Quebec at lower cost and therefore at a better competitive price visa-vis United States coal. If the present subvention policy administered by the dominion coal board is maintained, and I know of no reason why it should not be, I can give assurance to the house that every ton of coal produced in the maritime provinces over and above the local demand will find its way to the market, seaway or no seaway.


Mr. Carroll:: Is not the answer to the fears expressed by the coal miners in Nova Scotia the fact that the greatest opposition in congress against the building of this canal was from the United Mine Workers of America?


Lionel Chevrier: I think perhaps that is a good answer. One hon. member was fearful of the damage this would do to the port of Churchill. Let me say immediately that those fears are not well founded, because the Hudson Bay railway, which operates to Churchill and which is owned by the government and operated by the Canadian National Railways

as agent of the government, will do everything possible to bring just as much traffic as it can over that line in order to keep the traffic, rather than see it all go down the lakes in the manner it has been suggested it will go. Then again, the Department of Transport have seen fit in the last two years to co-operate to the fullest extent with all groups to see that the greatest possible movement of grain is made through Churchill. In that connection I will refer to what has been done by the department in connection with the commonwealth shipping committee in London to have the insurance rates on grain reduced and to lengthen the navigation season. I am confident there will be not the slightest effect on the port of Churchill from the construction of this seaway.
Hon. members have questioned the powers of this authority. They have indicated that they feel it should be in the nature of a planning board. Hon. members have now seen the bill and know that it is not the intention of the government to make a planning board out of the seaway authority. On the contrary, it is the intention to give the seaway authority the power to construct the navigation canal between Montreal and lake Erie and to administer and operate the canals entrusted to it.
I have just one word to say about the cost and then I shall resume my seat. This afternoon we had an interesting speech by an hon. member who stated that this huge project may cost a billion dollars or even a billion and a half. The information we have is that it will certainly not cost that much. In so far as the power aspect is concerned, that is to be looked after by the province in conjunction with an appropriate authority on the United States side of the line, so this house is not called upon to consider any expenditure in so far as that angle is concerned. Neither is the house called upon to consider any expenditure so far as the navigation portion of the project is concerned. It is estimated that the navigation feature of the project will cost $245,993,000, which is broken down as follows: In the Lachine section for navigation alone, $98,229,000; in the Soulanges section, $37,116,000; in the lake St. Francis section, $2,513,000; in the international section, $106,833,000, and in the Welland ship canal $1,302,000, making a total of $245,993,000.
It is expected that these sums of money will be liquidated by the imposition of tolls. Surveys have been made in the Department of Trade and Commerce, and it is anticipated that by the imposition of tolls throughout the seaway it will be possible to liquidate the scheme over a period not exceeding fifty 94699-114
, St. Lawr-ence Waterway years. It will be possible to liquidate the interest charges, cost of operation and amortization. There is nothing so extraordinary about that, That has been considered by both the government of the United States and the government of Canada, and we are of the opinion that the scheme can be liquidated by the imposition of tolls in the manner set out in the bill. I think perhaps I have said enough at this stage. As I said earlier, I think we have been fortunate in that most members have found it possible to support these projects. If that is so, I am hopeful that from this point we shall be able to proceed more effectively than heretofore.


Gordon Graydon: My anxiety, as the minister is aware, for an early start on this undertaking prompts the question I now want to put to him. I imagine it is a question that is in the minds of a good many members who are desirous of seeing the plans proceeded with. As I understand it, Canada must,go to the United States government for, certain consents before the plan can go forward. When Canada goes to the United States for these concessions or consents, as the case may be, to develop the international rapids, can congress, if it follows its procedure in the past, block that, or has the United States government full power to give such consents?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think I should
attempt to answer any questions as to what any foreign power can do. I will be glad to assist the house as to what is my understanding of the procedure. We have, I think, full authority to build the canal on our side. The province of Ontario will require some cooperation with an appropriate authority on the other side of the line, but if I were to attempt to answer questions as to what is likely to happen in congress I might well make a misstatement which I would regret afterward, and I would rather not. On the subject of asking questions, we are on section 1, and my understanding is that when we deal with the sections seriatim we can probably have the questions then. I am just wondering if the discussion is completed.


Howard Charles Green: The minister undertook the other day that there would be an opportunity for complete discussion on section 1.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not suggesting that there should not be discussion; oh, no. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that there should not be discussion on this section. Let there be the discussion there should be, and far be it from me to stop it, but if we were going to get a series of questions and answers On section 1, I was merely

St. Lawrence Waterway suggesting that it might take place on the other section. However, I am in the hands of the committee.


Mr. McLure:: When the minister was dealing with the steel companies of Canada he mentioned Dosco in Cape Breton. I would have liked him to go a little further and say that the plant there was to be greatly enlarged. After hearing the minister speak about these plants, one is inclined to ask why there is a scarcity of steel in Canada. When I spoke in the interests of the maritime provinces the other day with respect to the seaway project, I supported the idea that something definite should be promised us, and not only my own province. Indirectly we would derive great benefit if the steel plant at Sydney were one of the big steel plants of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: Substantial expansion is taking place at the Dominion Steel and Coal Company at Sydney. As I indicated, it is an expansion which will amount to $44 million, the first phase of which is $16 million. My hon. friend says there is a scarcity of steel but it is not only in Canada. There is a scarcity of steel all over the world. It is one of the most critical materials.


Howard Charles Green: The other night I asked the minister the following question, as found at page 1689 of Hansard for December 7:
Has the government any plans for a great expansion of Canadian steel production?
The whole tenor of my remarks was based on that question. I take it from what the minister has said tonight that there is to be no greatly expanded steel production plan for Canada arising out of these huge deposits of iron ore in northern Quebec and Labrador. He has explained that there is some expansion going on in the present steel plants, but apparently there is no broad scheme based on these huge resources. Can the minister tell us what percentage of the ore from northern Quebec and Labrador is to go to the United States? The department must have made some estimate of the amounts that will be used in Canada and the amounts that will be going to the United States. If the minister will recall, I quoted the other day a portion of the evidence given by Mr. George M. Humphrey, president of the M. A. Hanna Company of Cleveland, before the House of Representatives public works committee in Washington. In that statement he said that from 2 to 4 million tons of iron ore a year would be going to the United States Atlantic seaboard for use in the steel mills there, and that 6 to 8 million tons would be going up the St. Lawrence for use in United States steel mills in the lake Erie district.


These figures add up to a total of 10 million tons, which I understand is the estimated annual production from the new ore body. What is the expected proportion that will be used in Canada and what proportion will be going to the United States?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think anybody can answer the first part of the hon. member's question. The railway is not completed yet. The ore has not moved from Burnt Creek and Knob Lake to Seven Islands. It is not expected it will be moved before 1954. So until that time arrives it will be impossible to answer the hon. member's question.
The statement which Mr. Humphrey made I suppose deals with this position: when they do move their ore to that port of Seven Islands the St. Lawrence seaway will not have been completed. They have to get their ore out of there. They have to get it down to the market. So they will get it, I presume, down to the Atlantic seaboard ports. They will also move it to ports on the St. Lawrence, so I am informed, and from there move it by rail to the great lakes area. They will do that until such time as the seaway is completed, when they will be able to move it in the specialized carriers I mentioned earlier.


Howard Charles Green: The point I made was that, according to Mr. Humphrey, all of this iron ore is to go to the United States. Surely the government has made some investigation into the possibilities of using some of this iron ore in Canada. From what the minister said a moment ago he would not be able to answer that question until the railroad is completed and the first train of iron ore gets down to Seven Islands. That surely is ridiculous. The government surely must have given some thought to what proportion of this ore is to be used in Canada, and what proportion is to go to the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can throw some light on it. I think my hon. friend has a misconception of the relationship of the ore business to the steel business. For example, we will take the Algoma Steel Company, which uses roughly 1,200,000 tons of ore a year. At the mine some fifty or sixty miles away they produce about that much ore-that is, about 1,200,000 tons a year. Of that ore Algoma itself uses about 300,000 tons. You say: "Why is that? That does not seem reasonable".


Howard Charles Green: They mix it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A steel company must have many kinds of iron ore for the kind of products they are turning out at the time. You have two or three types of ore for an open hearth charge, and a different type

of ore for a Bessemer. It is common to put all this ore into what we call the great lakes pool of ore and to draw from that pool such ore as is required; also to put into the pool such ore as is surplus to the requirements of the owners of the pool.
It would be very difficult indeed to know definitely what was going to happen to Steep Rock ore next year. As a matter of fact the bulk of Steep Rock ore goes to the United States, for the reason that it is a very high grade of ore and no Canadian furnace can afford to use too much of it. AH Canadian operations, I think, use some Steep Rock ore.
Then, getting back to the St. Lawrence, the stock of the Iron Ore Company I believe is owned by six steel companies, and by Hollinger and by the Hanna Company. I understand that there are eight owners. Mr. Humphrey as quoted was speaking about certain ore which has been allocated to certain steel companies. I understand each of the steel companies has contracted for a certain amount of ore. I understand those contracts represent about 50 per cent of the output of the mine. The railroad and dock facilities are being geared for an output of 20,000,000 tons of ore a year. So about half of it is sold on firm contracts, and half of it will be offered on the markets of the world.
It is anticipated that the Canadian mills will take such proportion of the ore as they can use. I have no doubt that Dosco will take a portion of their ore from this source. I am sure the steel mills on the great lakes will use a portion of that ore. But I do not think any man can say three years ahead where all the ore will be marketed. I certainly could not. It is anticipated there will be a good market in Europe. I understand there is a firm market for about half the output in the mills represented by the ownership of the property.
My hon. friend asked if the government has a plan. The government does not build steel mills; it never has, and probably never will.


Howard Charles Green: They help.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We help, of course. And I might say that four years ago I was so sure we needed additional capacity that I had put in the speech from the throne a proposal to help finance the expansion of the steel industry to about the size that is being built at the present time. I was not able to convince the mills that such capacity was needed. I regretted it very much. The best I could do was not good enough, and the capacity was not built at that time. Had it been built then Canada would have been in a much more comfortable position during the last two or three years, the last two years at least.
94699-114i
St. Lawrence Waterway
However, we do try as a government to keep the economy in reasonable balance; and we always try to see that the basic ingredients of industry are provided in ample supply. We stimulate that sort of development. That is why we are financing the mechanization of coal mines in Nova Scotia at the present time. That is why we have done everything possible to facilitate the expansion of steel mills. I might point out to my hon. friend that today Canada is not self-sufficient in steel, or I should say in ore. We use more ore than is mined in Canada at the present time, even though we export ore from Newfoundland, for the reason that its geography is such that it cannot be used in Canada. It is too far away.


Howard Charles Green: They are exporting ore from British Columbia, too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. My hon. friend thinks that is unfortunate. I am not so sure. I am just as anxious to develop Canada as he is. I hope he will give me credit for that. I will give him credit for being as anxious as I am. But it seems to me that the opening up of that ore is the first important step toward a steel industry on the west coast. Steel industries have been interested in that situation. They are faced not only with building a steel plant but with opening up a great ore-mining industry, which is expensive indeed. At least in future they will have three mines open on the island. That may give a selection of ore, or it may give all one grade of ore; I am not sure. But I would hope that out of the three widely separated points there might be a selection of ore. The fact that they can see that ore, the fact that shipping facilities are there, and the fact that it is being mined is a great inducement toward building a blast furnace to use that ore. Probably half the capital expenditure is already made when those three deposits are being mined.
I believe you have to do first things first. I believe you must first be sure of your raw product before you can go on to the later stages of development. That has been true of almost anything Canada has done. We first mined copper and sold most of it as ore. We have now built a great fabricating industry in the field of copper, and we export more finished products of copper than the refined copper. That is true of zinc, and it is true of lead. The proportion of zinc fabricated in Canada as compared with zinc produced in Canada goes up rapidly every year.
By first opening up the iron ore-and by "opening up" I include the improvement of the St. Lawrence because that certainly opens up that ore to the steel mills of the great lakes-I believe that is the first

St. Lawrence Waterway Important contribution to the expansion of steel that will follow, as it always has followed in this country. Our steel capacity has been expanding steadily for a good many years.


Howard Charles Green: We are still only producing about two-thirds of our requirements, are we not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We were producing before the war. about three million tons and importing about one million tons.


Howard Charles Green: Is there not apt to be a tremendous increase in the demand for steel? Take for example the oil pipe lines, and developments like the aluminum plant in central British Columbia, and the development at Lynn Lake, as well as various other developments in Canada on a scale greater than we have ever had. Is it not likely there will be a tremendous increase in the demand for steel within Canada? If that is so, should not some more aggressive steps be taken to increase our steel capacity? The minister had admitted that a year or two ago we really needed the expansion of our steel industry, but it did not take place because the companies were unwilling to go ahead. We do not want to get into that position again. It does seem to me that the demand for steel is going to increase at a greater rate in the future than it has for years past.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As an optimist, that is my own view. My hon. friend and I are optimists. You could have a basic steel expansion for the isolated projects the hon. member mentions, projects that will be finished in the next two or three years. I am sure we both believe there will be other projects to follow for which we shall need more steel.


Howard Charles Green: Such as the South Saskatchewan and St. Lawrence waterways projects.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, they will take some steel. Nevertheless, there is an expansion of 33 per cent in capacity in progress at the moment. Blast furnaces are being built and finishing capacity is being installed. In order to justify a steel plant you must have three things. You must have iron ore available; you must have coal available, and there are several other ingredients you must have available which are less important. But above all you must have customers within reach. This accounts, of course, for the location of the steel plants we have. The owner of a steel plant always keeps his eye on the customer situation to make sure the plant can operate at an economic level, and that is usually about 60 per cent of capacity.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any reason steel plants could not be successfully installed on the lower St. Lawrence?
[Mr. Howe.l


Clarence Decatur Howe: You would have the iron ore there, but you would be still a long way from the coal and you would be an even longer distance from customers. I believe the latter ingredient would be most difficult. You would be moving finished steel instead of the ingredients.


Mr. Gillis:: Will the minister indicate when this steel expansion program about which he talks will have shown results? A few days ago I believe he said that it would be perhaps 1953 before we began to see the results of this 33 per cent expansion in basic steel. Will he indicate what part of that 33 per cent is being made at the Sydney plant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The first results of the expansion are already operative. The blast furnace which was built within the last 18 months at the plant of Dominion Foundries and Steel in Hamilton is now in operation, and we are getting the benefit of that additional production. The expansion at Sydney is in the direction of finishing capacity, because at Sydney the production of primary steel was out of balance with finishing capacity. As the hon. member knows, we were shipping billets from Sydney to be finished in Montreal and Hamilton. Additional finishing capacity is being put in so the operation will be brought into better balance. Just when it will come into production, I cannot say. I understand that $14 million is being spent in the present operation as part of a $40 million project. I am not familiar with the details.


Mr. Quelch:: I have always been under the impression that when the St. Lawrence project was completed ocean-going vessels would travel up to the head of the lakes to pick up cargoes of grain. In his speech the other day the minister made it clear that this will not be the case. It will only be the case where a vessel has an inbound cargo. Otherwise the cargoes of grain will continue to be brought to Montreal ;by lake steamer and transferred at Montreal to ocean vessels. At page 1579 of Hansard for December 4, 1951, the minister said:
The prairies would find a substantial saying in the cost of moving grain, flour and other products to markets in eastern Canada and overseas.
If the grain is going to continue to be brought down by lake steamer and then transferred at Montreal to the ocean-going vessels, where is the saving in cost?


Lionel Chevrier: The savings will be in the
disappearance of the 14-foot canals. Today grain is taken from the head of the lakes to Port Colborne, Prescott and such places

179X
as Port McNicoll. There it is transferred into smaller ships and brought down to Montreal.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's Wesl):: In the
course of the debate the other evening I made a reference to a statement made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. May I recall what I said, as it appears on page 1695 of Hansard for December 7:
I hope I do not do him an injustice when I say that the hon. member for Cape Breton South seemed to me to favour nationalization, that the government should take over the business if private enterprise is not willing to do it.
Here is what the hon. member said as it appears at page 1674 of Hansard for December 6:
As I suggested when I spoke before, I am prepared to support this project as one part of a large public investment program by the federal government. This authority to be set up should have the right to develop any potential power or other resource within a reasonable distance of that area.
Then in the next paragraph but one he said:
I think the government would be well advised to have another basic steel plant. This would not be asking very much.
Further on he says:
A new plant could be set up or the Sydney plant could be expanded, possibly by the use of public funds.
Well, if I misinterpreted the hon. member's remarks I am very sorry, but it seemed to me to be plain, from those and other remarks he made with reference to what is going on in Newfoundland at the present time, that he seemed to favour a policy of nationalization of the steel industry. The hon. member went on to make reference to Newfoundland. I can forgive him for what he said about me, but he made some remarks about Newfoundland which I believe he would not make again if he had the opportunity. On page 1697 of Hansard for December 7 he said:
. . . after years and years of the kind of development visualized by my hon. friend, Newfoundland stood as a rather badly undeveloped and in every way neglected section of North America. In 1944 I heard a representative of the British government make a report to a meeting in London.
On the next page, he said:
After listening to the report of that commission of government on the educational standards, the economic backwardness, the lack of sanitation and everything that was not modern in this world, if I had not known the section of Canada that was being referred to I would have thought the representative of the British government was describing a section of South Africa where civilization has just gone in to make a survey.
Now, sir, I have here a document published by the Department of External Affairs and entitled "Newfoundland, Canada's New Province". This document contains a statement of the expenditure per capita on education in the year 1944 in Newfoundland,
St. Lawrence Waterway the year to which the hon. member referred. Apart from what is spent by religious institutions and contributed by charitable bodies, Newfoundland spent $9.35 per capita; Prince Edward Island, $7.74; Nova Scotia, $9.41 and New Brunswick, $8.80. Therefore educational standards in Newfoundland stand up very well in comparison. Apart from that, sir, Newfoundland had the distinction even in this country of having higher educational standards than most of the provinces. I do not know to what the hon. member was referring as economic backwardness, because in 1944 Newfoundland had its highest foreign trade on record; it was over $100 million. He speaks of the lack of sanitation. Is a country going to be judged by the system of plumbing which it has? If -that is so Italy and France as well as many other European and South American countries would come in for general condemnation, as would pants of this country.
Newfoundland came in for condemnation for having everything that was not modern in this world. Down there we have the largest pulp and paper plant in the world, and we have the best fish-processing plant in the world. But apart from that-, I think everyone who has been to Newfoundland will recognize the fact that we have a law-abiding and Christian people, even if we have not all the modern facilities we might have. Those who go there enjoy themselves. Thousands of Canadians and Americans who went there during the war spoke very highly of Newfoundland. Only yesterday I heard a gentleman high in the civil service of this country state that the week end he spent down there was the happiest in his life.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. It seems to me that we are getting away from the matter of the seaway.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I only wanted to draw to the attention of the committee the incorrect statement made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of tying up the committee. What the hon. member for St. John's West thinks-


Jean-François Pouliot: Speak louder, please. What you are saying is of the utmost interest.


Clarence Gillis: Whatever the hon. member for St. John's West thinks or says in this chamber is not a great national issue. I have no intention of tying the committee up on the matter. What I objected to a few nights ago was the hon. member's misinterpretation of what I said. He has clearly indicated now that he does not know the difference between the nationalization of an industry, what I propose to the government, and what is going on in

St. Lawrence Waterway Newfoundland. Nationalization, as I understand it, means that there is an industry set up and the government decides to take it over. They are nationalizing an asset that was created by someone else, and it is generally done on the basis of compensation; but it is the taking over of an established industry. What I proposed to the minister, and it is relevant to the bill before the committee, is that this now is a government development. The taxpayers are going to provide the capital. I suggested that what should be done, if possible, was to do it in a manner similar to the T.V.A. development in the United States in so far as we can do it. That was a government-sponsored project. It was on a co-operative basis. There is not anything that would suggest its nationalization. It is operating now successfully in the United States, and I think it is an outstanding example of what can be done by government research, competent engineering, capital and direction by the government. There is no suggestion of nationalization there.
The same thing is true in Newfoundland. The government of Newfoundland is providing the capital, or at least 50 per cent of it. It is giving this encouragement to industries to come in. The Newfoundland government is creating something. They are not taking something over. It certainly is not nationalization. The expansion of the steel industry talked about by the Minister of Defence Production is being done along exactly the same lines. I think I am safe in saying that 50 per cent of the capital that is going into our present steel expansion is government money given to the industry to encourage them to expand in a time of crisis and need. That certainly is not nationalization. Perhaps the hon. member caught me in a rather unhappy mood the other night. When I said what I did, I did not mean anything disparaging.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Now you are sorry.


Clarence Gillis: No, I am not sorry. I am never sorry for anything I say; but I am in a better frame of mind tonight, and perhaps I am more reasonable. I did not have any intention of being disparaging or of casting any reflection on Newfoundland. The hon. member for Melfort, the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar and myself heard Lord Ammon make a report of a survey on social and economic conditions, with particular reference to the outports in Newfoundland; and the description that I and the other members along with me heard left a great deal to be desired along many lines. But of course there are many sections of Canada to which the same description might be applied. I


do not want to tie the committee up any longer. I am quite satisfied with what I put on the record, if the hon. member for St. John's West is now satisfied. It is not a great national issue, as I said before.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the clause carry?


William Joseph Browne: May I thank the hon. member for Cape Breton South for his explanation. I just want to point out one thing to him, namely that there is a difference between what is going on in Newfoundland and what he said, because the Newfoundland government is actually setting up in that province industries financed with government funds and operated by the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the minister one question. If he has dealt with it he can tell me so readily. I appreciate the position he took with regard to any questions as to the position taken in the United States. If my question transgresses the position he took, of course he can tell me and all is well; but I should like to put this question to him. Is there any point-and I mean point in time-beyond which it would no longer be possible for the undertaking to be a joint Canada-United States undertaking?


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can answer that question. Yes, there must be a time. When that time is I am unable to say, other than to repeat the general statement made by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada to the effect that if congress did not come along at an early date, then the President of the United States would be quite prepared to approve of this project as a second best choice, on condition that we would undertake to build the seaway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says that he is not able to indicate the exact date, although he realizes there has to be a point. Does the bill now before us close the door in any way or set any time beyond which there could not be a joint undertaking?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it does not.


William Joseph Browne: Is there any relation between the works that will be done for the hydroelectric project and the works that will have to be done for the seaway project?


Lionel Chevrier: No, there is not.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Last year some time a committee of the congress of the United States came here to talk the matter over with a similar committee in Canada, of which I think the Minister of Transport was chairman or with which he was connected is some official capacity. I have often wondered about it. There was a great deal of talk at that time

about this committee of the congress of the United States, and that they were here to discuss this St. Lawrence deep waterway. What was their reaction when they bade good-bye to Canada and had nothing more to do with this St. Lawrence waterway? Did they consider it to be an impossibility, or why did nothing further develop from that meeting of the committee of congress with a similar committee in Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: The committee that came to Canada to view the site of the Long Sault rapids was a committee on public works of the House of Representatives of the United States. It is not the first time similar committees of both the House of Representatives and the Senate have come to view the sites. They did not come here to deliberate with any opposite group in this country. They simply came to take a look at the works and to see the situation for themselves. That was only part of the visit which began at the Mesabi range at the head of the lakes, went right down through the whole of the project along the United States side and into the Canadian side at Beauharnois and Lachine, and ended at Montreal.
I was in contact with the chairman of the committee, Mr. Buckley. During his stay in Canada, he was sanguine about the whole thing. But of course he had to go back to the public works committee of the House of Representatives, which he did. I understand that some discussion took place later there, and that the bill which was under discussion at that time was not reported to the floor of the house.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, I do wish to refer back to comments that were made by the Minister of Transport before the dinner recess. At that time he seemed to express some measure of surprise that so much time had been devoted to the discussion of iron ore, when we were in fact discussing a deep waterway project. But the fact is that the discussion of iron ore was introduced by his own statement to the house at the time he was explaining the advantages of this development. And one of the things which it would seem not only points up this discussion on the basis of the use of iron ore but also raises some additional measure of concern on the part of representatives from the maritime provinces was the emphasis which he placed upon the fact that this seaway would make it possible to convey the iron ore to great steel mills in the United States. I refer to what is reported at page 1576 of Hansard, where he had this to say:
Now it also promises to be the key that will unlock for the future the iron ore fields of Quebec and Labrador. It will open large new markets for these ores in the great lakes area, otherwise largely
St. Lawrence Waterway
out of economic reach. And on the other side of the coin it will give those interior steel mills the best new source of ore at the lowest cost, a matter of serious concern at the moment.
Iron ore. The mills within reach of the great lakes account for about 75 or 80 per cent of the steel produced in United States. They draw ore preponderantly from the iron, ranges of the lake Superior district. The immediate problem is not the exhaustion of these ores, although that too may be expected at some more or less indefinite time. The point is that production of the ores now in use has just about reached its maximum annual rate, and that maintenance of even that rate promises to involve a continued increase in costs. Meanwhile ore requirements continue to rise, not only because of additions to steel capacity but because with a shortage of scrap it is taking more pig iron to make a ton of steel. The problem thus is one of a growing gap between supplies and requirements.
The minister went on to explain, that the construction of this deep waterway would make it possible for the iron ores from Quebec and Labrador to sell at prices which would make it possible for that iron ore to be sold to those great mills in the United States. May I emphasize the fact that in no remarks I made at any earlier stage did I suggest that we should not export iron ore to the United States; and so far as I am aware that argument has not been made. The argument that has been made is that there should be assurances that we are going to make the maximum possible use of iron ore in this country.
There are reasons why it would not be proper for us to place an absolute prohibition on the export of iron ore. Very large sums of money have been invested by companies in the United States in the development of this iron ore. It is unlikely that the maximum production now under way would have been actually yet undertaken were it not for the fact that companies in the United States had been prepared to invest capital in this venture. I do not think Canadians will wish to have the contracts of those companies disregarded at any time, or to see any suggestion of repudiation of the basis upon which we have encouraged and accepted investment in this country.
Having said that, however, we then come to what is to be done to encourage a greater use of iron ore in this country. We have heard speeches by hon. members from the maritime provinces which indicate very clearly the great concern they feel about the emphasis that is being placed upon the facilities that will be offered for concentrating still further industrial production in the central part of this country. I for one do not believe that anything except our own lack of vision could possibly prevent immense increases in industrial development in the central part of the country. I share, however, the sentiments of the hon. members from the maritime provinces, and I have already



St. Lawrence Waterway expressed my belief that at a time when the government is undertaking to spend so much of the people's money to provide facilities of this kind, it should give clear and positive evidence that it is going to take whatever effective steps it can to assure that there will be as great a decentralization of industry in this country as possible; and that local demands are created for iron ore in these areas where there will be opportunities not only to produce iron and steel for the local and Canadian markets, but also to export from seaboard to the markets of the world finished products from the iron and steel which could be made there if the steps are taken to provide power at low cost that could be taken, and which have been discussed here oh other occasions.
I would recall the remarks of the Minister of Transport when he took up the suggestion he understood had been made by one hon. member that probably this iron ore would be largely carried by ships from the United States. He pointed out that there is a very large program of shipbuilding now under way in Canada, and that just within these past few weeks some of the largest freighters ever built in this country, or in fact on this continent, have been launched, the last of them just within the last two or three days. I think there is evidence, as he says, of the confidence that is in the minds of many Canadians, and may I add also of people living in the United States, that there is going to be a great expansion of shipping, and that accounts for the number of these new ships that are being built. However, time will tell whether the preponderant part of that ore will be carried by Canadian ships or by ships from the United States.
I wish to deal particularly with what the minister said about the production of iron ore at Steep Rock and also of aluminum in processed form at Arvida. He asked: what has happened at Steep Rock? What has happened at Arvida? What has happened to the development of pulp and paper? He asked these questions in relation to the use of ships, and indicated that Canadian ships were carrying large quantities of iron ore from Steep Rock and aluminum from Arvida and pulp and paper from the great mills along the waterways of the interior of Canada. I think the question he asked, though, produces an answer that does underlie the importance of some further efforts being made to assure Canadian use of the iron ore. What has happened at Steep Rock is that that rich concentration of iron ore is going to the United States, whether in Canadian bottoms or in bottoms from the United States. That is not a limitless source of ore; that is something that cannot be replaced when it is

gone. It is true that a good mine has been developed there and that money is coming in for that ore, but we are receiving that money at the lowest level at which ore can be sold, except that ore which, as has already been mentioned, is being used in mills in Canada in mixture with other ore.
There is a difference between shipping pulp and paper and shipping iron ore. Pulp and paper is the result of a crop. True it is not an annual crop, but it is a recurring crop over a long period of years. It is a crop that can be maintained indefinitely if proper methods are employed. That is not true of iron ore. We are exporting pulp and paper because steps were taken to make sure that the highest possible employment would be created through the actual processing and manufacturing of wood products in this country. No objection was taken in the United States when the provinces of this country showed adequate concern over their legitimate self-interest and introduced a manufacturing clause into the contracts under which pulp logs were cut. If there are any people in the world who recognize legitimate self-interest it is the people of the United States, who have always practised that principle in relation to the development of their own resources.
In his earlier remarks the minister said this was something that the provincial governments could do, that it was not something the dominion government could deal with. The provincial governments have no authority over export as such. The provincial governments exercise control over export by licensing the cutting and making contracts under which the raw materials are used. The control they exercise over export is not direct, but there is effective control exercised by the terms they impose in the contracts under which the right to cut is given.
The dominion government has the right to deal with export and to impose any terms on export that it sees fit. As many hon. members will recall, we discussed for some considerable time certain questions relating to the export of oil and natural gas. It was fully recognized at that time that the dominion government and the parliament of Canada have the responsibility of dealing with export of that kind. There is no question about the fact that the dominion government and the parliament of Canada, where it is necessary to pass laws to deal with the subject, have authority. In fact they have the only authority to deal with exports as exports. I point that out because hon. members from the maritime provinces and from other parts of Canada which are not going to benefit



H, 1951

[Stage Direction]
directly in a way that can be seen at the moment, or to the extent of the central provinces, wish to have some indication that the government is prepared to use the authority it possesses, either under legislation now in existence or by legislation to be introduced, to assure the maritime provinces that where it is within their power they will take proper steps to bring about a greater decentralization of industry and an expansion of industry in the maritime provinces. That can be done so long as iron ore to be produced in this way is available under favourable terms to mills in the maritime provinces which could smelt it and produce pig iron or steel to be used ultimately in the industrial activities that could be encouraged in that way.
As has been pointed out, it is true that the dominion government does not build mills or directly actually enter into industrial developments of this kind in the ordinary course of events. However, the fact remains that the dominion government is exercising substantial influence on the location of plants by the fact that it is taking steps to assure certain types of production, and in taking those steps of course it has a great measure of choice as to where the developments will take place.
I recognize that this is not something that can be dealt with overnight. These are longterm plans that are being discussed. It is going to take considerable time for the railroad into the Quebec-Labrador ore areas to be completed and for the actual production of ore to reach the point where it will be flowing out to the port from which it will be carried. However, that very fact gives us time to take those steps which would encourage the increased construction of milling capacity in different parts of Canada to use the ore when it becomes available. In fact, if the plans are made now and encouragement given at this time, the mills would hardly be more than ready when the ore would actually be available for their expanded capacity.
It has been explained to us tonight that at Sydney, Hamilton, the Sault and elsewhere construction is under way. It has also been explained that the dominion government has actually assisted in the financing of the mechanization of the operation at Sydney. But it seems to me we should bear in mind that we have a statement by the Minister of Transport that we now have reserves of iron ore on such a scale that within no measurable term of years can we expect to seriously deplete the total reserve. We also have something else. We now have a mixture 94699-115
St. Lawrence Waterway of different types of ores to an extent which we did not have only a comparatively few years ago.	.
Therefore it would seem only reasonable for us to examine just what our target should be, recognizing that most of us in this house believe in the free enterprise system and the development of operations of this kind by proper investment under proper encouragement. What is the target we should be aiming at? It has been mentioned that with a demand of something in excess of four million tons we have been producing a little over three million tons. But every hon. member knows that we are very short of iron and steel at this time. Every hon. member knows also that we are importing large quantities of products of all kinds made from steel which might well be made here if sufficient encouragement were given. Therefore we cannot measure our needs simply by what we are using at the present time. If we were producing the same amount of steel in this country that is produced in the United States in proportion to population we would be producing approximately thirteen million tons instead of just over three million tons. It has been explained that work is under way which will substantially increase our steel production, but only by a small fraction of that requirement based on our use of steel in the same proportion that it is being used in the United States. I think our target is a point far beyond that. We are seeing this country develop as it has never developed before; but we are only seeing the beginning of what can come in a country that now has such vast quantities of iron ore, oil, uranium and the other things which will go into industrial expansion in the years ahead.
Our target should be something like 15 million tons of steel a year, and even that will be far below what this country will be requiring within a comparatively few years. It will be far short of the amount the country can use to great advantage if we recognize that steel is the metal base of industrial development and economic strength. As I mentioned in an earlier speech, for centuries alchemists tried to transmute base metals to gold. Today we do not need to transmute iron to gold; it is the most precious metal of all. We have iron ore, we have electric power and we have oil available in ever-increasing quantities. We have inland waterways to carry the ore and our finished products back and forth. We have harbours at the seaboard to ship our finished products to the markets of the world. It is one of the most challenging prospects that has unfolded before any nation.
With all that has happened, we are now entering the period of greatest opportunity
[Stage Direction]
St. Lawrence Waterway this country has ever seen, and that opportunity will be largely measured by the encouragement that is given to processing, finishing and manufacturing based on steel. I am not talking only of processing to the point of the steel ingot. I am talking of all the associated industries that will grow upon the expanded use of steel in Canada. Just as Great Britain suddenly emerged from the stage just over a hundred years ago where its population was a little more than our population today to a position of great international power and wealth, this country is at the beginning of a historic period when we may see our population grow to numbers far beyond anything we have yet dreamed.
When I say that I am not suggesting, as is said -sometimes, that we should suddenly start shuttling ships across the ocean bringing large numbers of people here. If we hold in this country the population that is born and brought up here we will be increasing our population a great deal more than it has been increased for some time. Population also has a habit of adjusting itself to the capacity of a country to support population. In the United States the population has grown because of the employment created through resources which they have put to such good use. That is what we should be looking forward to in this country, and what we can look to with great advantage at this time.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has spoken of the fact that from the economic point of view we must export ore for the purpose of opening up this development. Very well; let that be done. But let us remember it is Canadian ore that has been found in our own soil and, while we encourage others to come here and make developments of this kind, when we spend huge sums of money to make it possible to move the ore back and forth we can also say very appropriately that Canadian consumers should have certain advantages in the use of ore that we produce in our country. There is nothing unreasonable in that attitude. There would be nothing unfair to the people of the United States or elsewhere if by appropriate measures we actually create more favourable terms for the Canadian industrial consumer of our ore so we might encourage great industrial development based on this raw material in the same way that we encouraged industrial development in the use of wood products a few years ago and made it the greatest money earning industry we have in the country today.
While this discussion takes place on the first section of the bill in committee after it has received second reading, I should like to point out that what was under consideration on second reading was the principle, and I think
IMr. Drew.l
[Stage Direction]
it is greatly to the credit of hon. members, who come from parts of the country that feel their position may be jeopardized by a measure of this kind unless certain assurances are given to them, that they should have accepted the principle contained in the bill and not voted against it, although there may be so many reasons from their point of view why it is difficult to make a decision of that kind without much stronger assurances than they have been given in the bill now before us.
Now we have the details presented to us for consideration. I hope the Minister of Transport will reassure those members who have expressed that measure of concern, and all of us who hope to see immensely expanded industrial production based on the use of iron and steel in this country, that along with a development of this kind, which according to the words of the minister will carry ore into that area where 75 or 80 per cent of the great steel mills of the United States now operate, steps will be taken to decentralize industry across Canada in every way possible. I hope he will reassure us that appropriate steps will be taken to give to the Canadian producer certain advantages in the use of our own ore which under a system of free enterprise and private investment will expand the steel industry and related industries of this country on the scale that is justified by the resources we now possess.
Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few minutes to say a few words on the bill. Several members from the maritime provinces have expressed their views, and I should like to mention particularly the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, who spoke today. I wish to go on record as supporting to a great extent everything they have said. I realize that every citizen of the maritime provinces is very much interested in expanding our steel industry or any other industries that we may have, and in the creation of any new industries that might be set up there. I have spoken on the St. Lawrence waterway on two other occasions and expressed my views very clearly. However, there is one thing I have not heard discussed so far in this debate, and that is the change in the bill before us now having in mind suggestions that have been made in the years gone by.
I refer to the original agreement between Canada and the United States on the great lakes-St. Lawrence navigation and power project. When that was discussed originally many years ago it called for the free passage of vessels throughout the entire length of

the St. Lawrence waterway. At the present time such a policy exists on the St. Lawrence waterway. Vessels from all parts of the world use the canals and the waterway free of tolls. Under the proposed all-Canadian St. Lawrence seaway authority, tariffs of tolls will be established. At this point I should like to quote the Minister of Transport as he is reported at page 1707 of Hansard for December 7. The hon. member for Lethbridge had asked a question, to which the minister replied:
The United States have manifested great concern over it.
He was referring to the statement concerning the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway.
The position of the President of the United States is indicative of that, when he states that he is willing, if the congress does not act within a reasonable time, to consent to the development of this project in conjunction with us, both as to power and navigation.
In so far as the first part of my hon. friend's question is concerned, if he will only wait until the bill comes before the house he will find the seaway project is self-liquidating. He is going on the assumption that the taxpayer is going to be faced with a tremendous expenditure. In the original statement I made I indicated that it is intended to liquidate the whole project by the imposition of tolls.
If as the minister states this project will be self-liquidating-and I have no reason to doubt that statement-then there is little argument so far as the taxpayers of this country are concerned as to other parts of Canada which would not be benefited by the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway being obliged to pay their proportionate part of the costs.
That particular section in the bill will take away much of the feeling that has been created in the maritime provinces to the effect that we were paying a proportionate share of the cost of something from which we would receive no benefit. If the tolls which will be charged when the St. Lawrence waterway is completed will completely maintain operation and pay for the cost of building the waterway development, then there is very little in the way of increased taxation that can be used as an argument against this huge development, which I believe we are all pretty well convinced will be a benefit to all Canada.
When I spoke on this same subject on one or two former occasions I opposed it, stating that it was a project which, although financed by all the Canadian people, would bring no benefits whatever to the maritime provinces. But since I am convinced it will be self-liquidating, and that in the final analysis it will not cost the Canadian people anything, I cannot do other than support it.
St. Lawrence Waterway
Mention has been made of certain projects we would like to see developed in the maritime provinces. I believe the minister is well aware of them. In fact I have no doubt all cabinet ministers are aware of them. They have been brought to their attention on many occasions. I have faith in the cabinet and in the government, and I am going to support the bill without hesitation, convinced in my own mind that we in the maritimes will not be forgotten and that the many things we have brought to the attention of the government, which we feel would be beneficial to the maritimes if developed, will meet with the government's approval. I believe we can rest assured of their assistance.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Like the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I have spoken on this project on other occasions. I wish now to make only a few remarks with reference to statements made by the minister before six o'clock. He indicated that because about $92 million was being expended in the maritime provinces we should not complain about the development of the St. Lawrence seaway. He made special reference to the Canso causeway in Nova Scotia. When I spoke before I made reference to that project. It is in Nova Scotia. I said that while those of us in New Brunswick will receive no benefit from the causeway at Canso, still we were anxious that the development should take place.
He mentioned also the ferry between Bar Harbour and Yarmouth in Nova Scotia. This, also, will be of no particular benefit to New Brunswick, but we have no objection to it. As a matter of fact it will be to the disadvantage of New Brunswick. It is for the development of the tourist trade of Nova Scotia. Whereas in past years cars coming from the United States came through St. Stephen and up through Saint John and Moncton to Nova Scotia, we will now lose that traffic on account of the ferry. He also mentioned the Saint John airport. Let me remind him that Saint John waited a long time for the airport. I doubt if there is another city in Canada that has waited as long or as patiently as the city of Saint John. It was entitled to the airport. Although we are always grateful for anything given to us, I do not think we need feel too grateful in this respect.
He made further reference to Fredericton, another city which waited a long time for an airport. He mentioned the ferry between Cape Breton and Newfoundland. He must know that the ferry between Cape Breton and Newfoundland was promised to the people of Newfoundland when they entered confederation. While we are grateful for these things they are what we should expect, what we are entitled to expect. The expenditures

St. Lawrence Waterway
on these developments are no greater than the expenditures on similar developments in all the other provinces of the dominion.
Airfields, causeways and ferries are good in themselves; but they do not make employment for our people. We would rather see the development of some project like the Chig-necto canal, or the project at Passamaquoddy, where cheap power would be produced in the maritime provinces and industry would be encouraged. That is what we ask for; that is what we feel we are entitled to, in addition to these other things the minister has mentioned.
My leader spoke about our fear of centralization of industry. That is exactly what we fear. We have seen our young people leave our province because of the lack of industry. We believe the development of the St. Lawrence seaway and St. Lawrence power will create more industry in the central provinces, and will take more of our young people away from the maritime provinces unless there is a power development in that part of the country.
I have very little more to say. The minister tried to leave the impression that because we had received $92 million for the development of certain public works we should be satisfied. We are not satisfied. We want developments which will increase industry and give employment to our people. That is what we are asking for, something along the lines mentioned by my leader tonight, and to which reference has been made on other occasions. I do hope the minister and the government will keep these things in mind. The hon. member for Charlotte has just said that the cabinet is well aware of the requests of our province for the development of Passamaquoddy and Chignecto. I hope they will keep those matters in mind. If the government helps in the development of these projects, then in time I am sure they will be self-liquidating and self-supporting. I am also satisfied they will bring industry to the maritime provinces. As no doubt the St. Lawrence seaway and power project will be a great blessing to the central provinces, so the development of these projects would be a great blessing to the maritime provinces. We would have in Canada not only a prosperous central section, but prosperity in the maritimes and other sections.
That is what we are asking for. We ask not only for a causeway, not only for the airports to which we are entitled anyway, but something further which will develop our industries.


Mr. Nowlan:: Just before this section carries, may I say that I was not in the house the latter part of the afternoon when the minister


opened the debate, as I was attending the public accounts committee. I am not in a position, therefore, to discuss with him the proposed expenditures which I understand he enumerated. The hon. member for Royal has spoken about these moneys having been expended. I believe he is a little optimistic in that statement, judging from the projects I heard mentioned. They are still promissory notes, and are a long way from being cash. The causeway has been promised for at least twenty years, and bobs up before every election. Then, it subsides again beneath the waters of Canso strait. This time we are accepting the assurance that the government will go ahead with the scheme. Similar remarks could be made about the other projects mentioned.
I rise simply for the purpose of asking the minister if he would clarify one point he mentioned this afternoon. Specific mention was made of the proposed ferry from Bar Harbour to Yarmouth as something which has been constructed or which would be constructed. I might also let the minister know of a personal note in connection with that particular ferry. It has been promised for some considerable time. Plans were prepared and, as all hon. members know, this ferry means a great deal to the province of Nova Scotia because it does assist in the development of the tourist industry. I was shocked one day to read in the Ottawa Journal or the Globe and Mail a statement by the Minister of Transport that the construction of that ferry would be postponed because of a shortage of steel. I have not looked at my files to check the dates, but I believe that was about two years ago.
Then as I recall it, speaking again from memory and without trying to be accurate as to dates but it seemed to me within a week or two weeks, the hon. member for Stormont, who happens to be the Minister of Transport, speaking in his own constituency said the time had come when the St. Lawrence project must be proceeded with at once. If the government of the United States was not going to do it, then certainly the government of Canada must do it. To say the least, I was irritated and I believe many others in the maritimes were, at the suggestion, I know unintentional, that it was possible to find steel for such a huge project which meant much to the productivity of Ontario, but it was impossible to find a quantity of steel for a project which to some extent was comparable in that it would bring new dollars into Nova Scotia. I simply say that in passing. It still rankles when I hear this project mentioned. Since the minister has introduced the subject, and since there is some doubt as to when that ferry is to be built and when it is to go

into operation, I trust that when the minister closes this debate he will give us some information on these expenditures which I understand total some $93 million.


Howard Charles Green: There is one matter I should like to mention to the minister, and that concerns the possibility of using the waterway for twelve months in the year. A huge amount of money is being spent to construct this waterway, and if some means could be found for keeping it open for twelve months instead of seven the value to Canada would be greatly increased. I am wondering whether the minister's department is doing any research into that problem, and is that possibility being kept in mind in planning for the waterway?
I was surprised to find in the Engineering Journal for June of this year an article entitled "The St. Lawrence Waterway, an AllCanadian and Very Deep Route." It is written by J. G. G. Kerry, M.E.I.C. who I understand is an outstanding engineer. As I read the article it suggests there is a possibility of keeping the waterway clear of ice.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That would be the last straw.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon. friend trying to help the maritimes?


Howard Charles Green: This possibility arises from the fact that lake Ontario never freezes. The suggestion is that if the free water could be channelled from lake Ontario into the river it might be possible to keep the waterway open all winter. For example, this author has this to say:
Such a supply of heat energy as is stored in. the waters of lake Ontario during the winter months is almost unique. It is a great national asset that the engineers of Canada should not fail to use to the greater advantage of Canada.
Such a plan may or may not be sound, but it does seem to me that the objective is of such great value that the department would be wise not to ignore any suggestion of that type, and not to construct the waterway in such a way that it would be impossible to adopt some of these schemes. A year or two ago when we were interested in atomic energy, I understood that eventually that power might be used for dispensing with ice. I suppose it is many years in the future, but could the minister tell us whether his department has in mind the possibility of some such scheme that would eliminate ice in -this waterway during the winter months?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to that question is no. We in the department have no means or scheme whereby we can do away with ice. I am aware of the article to which my hon. friend refers, and so are the engineers in the department, but we know of no method whereby navigation can be kept open for twelve months in the year. We
St. Lawrence Waterway in the department know of no method whereby navigation can be kept open for a greater length of time than it is kept open. On the contrary, we are proceeding on the basis that it can be kept open for seven *or eight months only, because we are continuing our program of icebreakers. I am not an engineer, and I am not in a position to depreciate or appreciate the article to which my hon. friend has referred. All I can say is that we in the Department of Transport know of no method whereby the St. Lawrence can be kept open for twelve months in the year.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Howard Charles Green: I understand the St. Lawrence seaway authority is to be a crown corporation?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Of what type? How would
it fit in with the other crown1 companies? To what type would it correspond?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The national harbours board.


Howard Charles Green: It is to be set up in a way
similar to the national harbours board?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On section 10-Purposes.
George Alexander Drew: Why does the authority extend only to lake Erie? In all the discussions that have taken place there has been constant reference to the fact that this is one great waterway from salt water to the head of the lakes. I am anxious to know why this authority simply goes as far as lake Erie and does not include the St. Clair or Sault development.


Lionel Chevrier: Because there is already fairly deep navigation in the upper channels. There is a 25-foot depth for outbound navigation, and a 21-foot depth for upbound navigation. Over the years it has been the practice and custom for the United States to provide for the expenditure in that area. That is the reason it is not included here; and it is certainly not included in the expenditure that we propose under the authority.


George Alexander Drew: This bill, of course, does not deal only with expenditure and construction; it deals with administration and supervision. It would have seemed to me appropriate that the administrative authority and the power of supervision should extend through the whole length of the waterway.
1800	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway


Lionel Chevrier: There is provision for adding to the authority additional canals and operations in the upper lakes, if that were required. It is not envisaged at the moment. That is all I meant to say. While the 1941 agreement envisaged, as my hon. friend probably had in mind, the whole channel from the head of the lakes to the port of Montreal, this bill does not do that. Obviously that would mean a greater expenditure.


George Alexander Drew: That is what I had in mind. It is what I also had in mind when on an earlier occasion I referred to the fact that this is one integrated waterway and has been for some time, and that what is really being done is to bring the St. Lawrence part of it up to the standards that have already been created across the Niagara peninsula and in the upper waters. It does not seem to me the mere fact that the authority would include the whole of the waterways right through to the lakehead would add to the expense in any way; because after all, the supervision and administrative direction that would have to be exercised would be only such supervision and direction as the government felt desirable at any time over those upper areas.


Lionel Chevrier: Quite so. It would not add to the expense if we were to take over canals already in existence in that area. It would only do so if we were to deepen the channels to 27 feet.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I gather from the minister that there is to be some expenditure on the Welland canal?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is for deepening it from 25 feet to 27 feet is it?


Lionel Chevrier: No. It is already, at the sills, 30 feet in depth.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is what I thought.


Lionel Chevrier: It is for deepening the entrance and the exit to the Welland canal, which will run into about $1,200,000.


Agar Rodney Adamson: No consideration has been given-or I suppose it has, but the decision has obviously been against it-to making all the canals 30 feet in depth?


Lionel Chevrier: No consideration has been given to that matter, because the expenditure would be tremendous.


Clarence Gillis: This clause is extremely
important; it has to do with the purposes, capacities and powers of the authority. I think the clause restricts any development except in the area set out in the clause, namely between Montreal and lake Erie.


That makes the thing pretty much a central Canada development. When I was discussing this matter I had hoped that the authority would be broad enough to develop in any part of Canada any power or similar project that might be in the interests of Canada as a whole. This does not give the organization, when it is set up, any wide authority but restricts its activities to the area set out in this particular clause. I suggest to the minister that there are other developments which might be undertaken.
This bill has to do not only with the development of that waterway. It gives the authority the power to acquire lands for constructing, maintaining and operating all such works, and so on. What I had hoped- and I still hope the minister will think about it-is that once this authority is set up, it is going to develop in Canada power projects and industries, if necessary, in certain parts of the country. I should like to see this authority broad enough to give them power to look at, for example, the 'Quoddy project in New Brunswick. It is just as necessary to the province of New Brunswick, to the states of Maine and New Hampshire, and to that surrounding area as is this power project to the province of Ontario and the state of New York. It would not necessarily mean that we would have to go ahead and develop it overnight. But as we are embarking on a program of this kind, I think my suggestion might be adopted. It is government incentive in opening up and developing the country where there are potentialities and where risk capital cannot be found. I think that is in accordance with the government's program announced in 1945. It now looks to me as though the government were starting to implement it. Why should we restrict the development to the area to which it is restricted under this clause?
If the minister added just a couple of words I think it would be quite satisfactory to everyone. I suggest that it would be satisfactory if something were added to the effect that this authority had power to develop projects between the port of Montreal and lake Erie, and in any other area where a project might be in the best interests of Canada. I think those words would broaden the effect of the section, and would give them the right at least to continue the survey that is being made of the 'Quoddy project and the Saint John river project. As we are now setting up this kind of machinery, I think it should be broad enough to include the whole of Canada, where the authority may determine that a project is necessary and desirable and risk capital cannot be found for it, such as your power in Ontario and in the state of

New York. I do not think that is asking too much. I do not anticipate that it will be done overnight but at least it would give to the bill and to the authority the proper designation, that given it by the minister, namely that this is in the interests of Canada as a whole. While he said that, this clause restricts the authority you are setting up to the short section between Montreal and lake Erie. Will the minister consider adding the provision that, as to any other project that comes within the scope of this authority and that might be in the interests of Canada as a whole, they could take a look at it, at least?


Lionel Chevrier: Much as I should like to accede to the request of my hon. friend who is so co-operative, generally speaking, and who is being co-operative at this time, I have to say that this is a specific project. That is why the government felt that the authority should be set up in the form of a crown company, along the lines of a former crown company, to deal with two things, namely the construction of the waterway and the operation of the works. If there were to be an extension, where would you draw the line? I think I know what my hon. friend has in mind. He is thinking of something along the line of the T.V.A. in the United States. The government, unfortunately for him in this case, has decided that it should be a crown company in this sense; and I have no authority to amend the bill as he has suggested, nor could I do so at this juncture.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 11 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On section 14-Management and operation of canals and works.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain what type of operation section 14 is intended to cover? It gives the authority power apart from the authority being given by the main portion of the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: This is to cover a case such as this, for instance. Let us assume that the Lachine canal is developed. It will authorize the seaway authority to take over the Lachine canal and operate it. Likewise it might authorize the seaway authority to take over other canals that are now operated by the Department of Transport, if it should be deemed necessary to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-Tariffs of tolls.
Agar Rodney Adamson: As this takes in the Welland canal as well I gather that it will be possible, under this authority, to charge tolls on the Welland canal?
St. Lawrence Waterway


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: As I read it, section 15 would empower the authority to charge tolls on the Welland canal, would it not?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, but on the Welland canal only in so far as the cost is concerned. I indicated a moment ago that it would cost about $1,200,000. I have forgotten the figure I put on the record. Only as to that expenditure and the cost of the operation of the Welland canal is it the intention to charge tolls. I put on the record how the cost of amortization would be disposed of; and in so far as Welland is concerned, it would only be for the expenditure at Welland.


Howard Charles Green: Power contained in the section is broad enough to enable the levying of a regular toll in the Welland canal?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes.


George Alexander Drew: Does that conflict with any existing arrangements we have with the United States in regard to the use of that and other waterways?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it does not.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: It seems to me the government is determined to have this put through. They have had excellent cooperation. I do not think we have ever experienced such co-operation in this chamber before, but I might say a minimum of consideration. It is after ten o'clock, and I think we have done enough.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up the following items: The debate on the address; Bill No. 33, to establish the St. Lawrence seaway authority; Bill No. 34, respecting construction of works for the generation of electric power in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river; then the three resolutions: one, to amend the Dominion Elections Act; two, the resolution respecting the national gallery and three, to amend the Civil Service Act. Then, if we have time, we shall take up Bill No. 17 to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936, and Bill No. 8, to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act.


[Stage Direction]
At 10.05 o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 12, 1951